HC Deb 23 October 1992 vol 212 cc673-95

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

9.33 am
Madam Speaker

I have to announce to the House that because of the great interest in this subject I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 11.30 am and 1 pm. As we have a statement today, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the need for brevity.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

The basis for our debate on the policing of London is the Commissioner's annual report for 1991–92, which provides a comprehensive account of the work of the Metropolitan police service, the successes that it has achieved and the difficulties that it has encountered.

This is the last report to be made by Sir Peter Imbert, who will retire from his post as Commissioner on 31 January 1993. I am very glad to be able to announce that the Queen has appointed Paul Condon, the present chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter.

As Sir Peter makes clear in his report, he inherited from Sir Kenneth Newman a service that had decentralised operational decision making to areas and divisions, but Sir Peter recognised that cultural changes needed to be made if organisational changes were to be effective. The Plus programme resulted, with a complete reappraisal of the fundamental purpose of the service. The statement of common purpose and values was an early part of the process, which has continued through a series of initiatives, including, in February this year, the publication of the first five-year corporate strategy.

Those developments in the leadership and management of the service have placed the Metropolitan police in the forefront of the moves to develop quality of service as the main aim for the police throughout England and Wales.

Against that background, I suspect that Mr. Condon, as the new Commissioner, would agree with me that he has a hard act to follow, but he will be able to build on the firm foundations that Sir Peter has laid. The present Commissioner, who is admirably supported by his deputy and the rest of his top management team, has focused the attention of the Metropolitan police on the high standard of service that their officers must provide to maintain the trust that must exist between the police and the community. In my judgment, Paul Condon has shown the same commitment to similar ideals in his management of the Kent constabulary, where he has been hugely successful. I have no doubt that under his leadership the Metropolitan police will continue to make significant improvements in their relationship with the public and in their effectiveness in meeting the ever-rising demands placed on them. Paul Condon will prove to be a very forceful and dynamic successor to a distinguished Commissioner.

Part of the foundation on which Mr. Condon will be able to build are the strategic intentions of the Metropolitan police set out in the corporate strategy to which I have just referred. This reflects the commitment to increase consultation with the public and their representatives, to inform and to respond to their views. The Metropolitan police have therefore been moving towards a borough-based service, with divisional boundaries aligned to the London boroughs. This complements the service's move to sector policing.

Borough-based policing will make the consultative arrangements established under section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 more effective and will enable the police to work more closely with borough authorities and community groups. There are now 41 consultative groups in the Metropolitan police district, and all 35 London boroughs have functioning consultative groups. This now includes the direct involvement of Hackney borough council.

There are signs that that is contributing to improved relations between the police and the community in the borough. I regret to say that Lambeth is now the only borough where councillors are not involved, although at least we have moved to the stage where meetings of the consultative group are being held in the town hall. I hope that councillors in Lambeth will soon make use of the opportunities which their colleagues elsewhere in London, of all parties, have found available.

There was a time when there was a tradition among the left of the Labour movement in London of positive hostility towards the police. As the Labour party has gone through a process of mild reconstruction, I think that I see that tradition vanishing slightly, and I hope that the last traces will disappear in Lambeth.

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)

I think that the Secretary of State slightly underestimates the speedy move taking place at the moment towards Lambeth becoming officially part of the police consultative committee. I am president of the consultative committee, and the Members of Parliament involve themselves. Next week, there will be a top-level meeting between all chief superintendents, the district commissioner and the leader of the council. Quick moves are being made now, and I hope that we shall move forward in Lambeth to ensure that the police service is responsive to the people there, and that our borough is involved in the process.

Mr. Clarke

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sure that all three Members of Parliament from the borough have been encouraging the council to develop proper links with the police. I am sure that the Metropolitan police, for their part, will respond by trying to build a proper relationship and to be better informed about the views of the borough and the style of policing required there.

I have been impressed by the obvious wish of the police service to develop a more open approach to its public responsibilities—the Plus programme is a good example of the work that has been done. All that came before our citizens charter initiative, but the Plus programme and the citizens charter are complementary and embrace many of the same principles—consultation with the public, openness and accountability, and the achievement and publication of standards of service.

The charter and the police service's quality of service initiative emphasise the importance of measuring performance and service delivery in so far as that is possible. After all, how can the police or the public know what quality of service is being offered if there are no means of measuring and comparing one part of the service and another? The standard of service will not in the end be measured by impressions, by anecdotes or by our individual personal experience. It is possible to devise clear and precise indicators that accurately measure the services provided and which way they are moving with regard to quality.

The Audit Commission, following the remit given to it by the Local Government Act 1991, has now published a formal consultation document containing proposals for performance indicators for policing. Those were prepared after consultation with the police service and Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.

I am anxious that when we introduce performance indicators as a management tool they will be a useful way of measuring standards of performance which mean something to the public and to the average policeman. By the end of this financial year, a set of core indicators will be in place. They will be applied from the beginning of 1993, leading in 1994 to the publication of force performance in aspects which we will all be able to understand and appreciate, such as the time of response to emergencies, crime rates and detection, the composition of the police force—specifically, the numbers of police officers who are women or who are members of ethnic minorities—and complaints against the police, as well as the cost of providing a police service.

All that published information and performance indicator information made available to us will play an important part in stimulating an informed and intelligent dialogue about the police, setting out much more clearly than before what the police can reasonably be expected to achieve. I have made it clear that I expect the Metropolitan police to provide the same information as the other police forces in the country, and I shall ensure that it is all published.

The Met is, of course, only one force within the police service in England and Wales, although it is by far the largest. I should briefly say something about broader issues affecting the police service generally, which I shall be considering over the coming months and which, as I shall explain, will reflect upon the Met as well.

I shall look with especial care at the way in which police authorities work. They should be a key influence on the style of policing, because it is their job to determine, with the chief constable, how the funds available should be deployed locally. It is to the policy authority that the chief constable should be primarily accountable. At present, there is a strange balance between the local powers of a police authority and my central powers in the Home Office. I have total power over the size of the establishment —the number of uniformed officers—in each police force throughout the country and direct powers over capital allocations. On the other hand, some aspects are very decentralised under the control of the policy authority, and in different parts of the country there is a varying relationship between the authority, with its responsibilities, and the chief constable with his responsibility for operational matters.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke

I shall give way soon.

It is time to take a fresh look at my own powers and at the role and composition of police authorities, and to come to judgments about responsibilities and accountability. Chief constables should be clearly responsible for managing their forces effectively in the light of local needs. I expect them to be called to account by the police authorities, and on some issues by the Home Secretary, on how they do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Met?"]

I am about to relate that point to London.

In reviewing the role of police authorities, of course that has implications for the very different sort of police authority which we have in London. In the rest of the country, we have a tripartite system—Home Secretary, local police authority and chief officer of police. In London, we have what I suppose could be called a bipartite authority; the Home Secretary acts in effect as the police authority. Some features of the present structure for London may be right. There are bound to be some differences in the oversight of the capital city's policing compared with that of provincial forces.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I was about to say that, when I consider the arrangements for police authorities across the country and the proper accountability of provincial forces, I shall certainly not rule out the present arrangements for the Met and I shall want to see to what extent any measures that I may introduce in the rest of the country could usefully be applied or adapted to the Met and to London.

Mr. Soley

Many of us are puzzled by what the Home Secretary has been saying, because we do not have a police authority in London. This is supposed to be the half day in the year when there is some accountability. If the Home Secretary is telling the House that what happens is unsatisfactory. and that there should be some accountability through a local elected authority, that is welcome. We have been putting that idea to the House for 10 or 12 years. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make himself clear? Will London have some form of elected authority for policing? That is what many people feel that it needs.

Mr. Clarke

The straight answer to that question is no. I do not agree.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Why not?

Mr. Clarke

We have just heard about the welcome progress being made in Lambeth towards having a dialogue with the police and being prepared to allow a consultative committee to meet in the town hall, but there have been times when I have doubted whether Lambeth was quite ready for self-government. It is improving all the time, but I do not think that we are yet ready to have an elected police authority for the Met. What I said was carefully phrased: I am undertaking a review of the responsibilities of police authorities and the accountability of chief constables to their police authorities, and I do not rule out the possibility of change in the Met. However, I was certainly not announcing a move to an elected authority. I propose that during the debate hon. Members give their views on the police authority—

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)

We have been doing that for a decade.

Mr. Clarke

Yes, hon. Members have been doing that, and some have been putting forward the idea of the London branch of the Labour party that there should be an elected authority to share the running of the police with the Commissioner. I am not instantly attracted to that idea.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of the people of London were delighted when the Greater London council was abolished and that in subsequent elections they have confirmed their faith in the party which got rid of it? They do not want to see it reappear under any guise.

Mr. Clarke

Yes. My one regret about the GLC was that we delayed so long before abolishing that totally ridiculous body. I certainly would not wish to see any feature of it being revived.

Hon. Members

Get on with it.

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I shall indeed get on with it, but first I shall give way to the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Blair

With all due respect, it is a bit much for the Home Secretary to put that teaser into his speech and then refuse to answer questions about it. I am not sure whether we are getting a ministerial statement. I understand—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me whether I am right—that he is making two points, the first of which is that he will review the procedures for police authorities throughout the country but that he will want to keep some form of elected police authorities in the rest of the country. Secondly, he seems to be saying that he wants to examine whether he will bring the metropolitan arrangements into line with those for the rest of the country. Is that right or not? If that second point is right, will he tell us what range and type of elected authority he is considering for London?

Mr. Clarke

Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has done what his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) did, which is to rephrase and paraphrase my suggestions. All I said was that I was working inside the Home Office on the role of police authorities, the extent to which they discharge their present responsibilities, the extent to which the chief constable is properly accountable to them and the extent to which the system is working in the best way to produce a clear policy for policing. I wanted to tell the House that that was under way, as I have said publicly, so that I could invite the views of others. I have no doubt that the Labour party and chief constables have views on the role and composition of the pace authorities, so I am flagging the fact that I am considering those matters and, no doubt, will in due course come to conclusions. I will welcome proposals from others.

The idea that I am making a statement announcing that I am instantly changing the nature of police authorities in London or in the rest of the country is wrong. I look forward to hearing in due course the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on police authorities.

Mr. Blair

We should have the matter cleared up a little. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary has come to an instant view. I had always understood that his party had ruled out entirely any change in the arrangements whereby the Home Secretary has direct responsibility for the police in London. Is he saying to us that he is prepared at least to consider that the position will change and that there may be some form of police authority for London? That is not an unreasonable question.

Mr. Clarke

What I said was as plain as a pikestaff. I said that I was considering the role of police authorities, and, while I do that, I do not rule out thinking about the arrangements in London. At present, I am wholly satisfied with my role as the police authority in London. I will now proceed, if I am allowed to, to discharge that responsibility by making progress in the debate.

Mr. Boateng

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke

No. I want to move on to the subject of sector policing which is designed to enable the service to respond more closely to the needs of the community. It is now firmly in place in many divisions and will be introduced throughout the Metropolitan police district by the end of March 1993. Groups from all sectors of the community have been involved with the police in developing effective sector policing, and benefits can already be seen in the improved links with local communities.

The service recognises that it must be able to evaluate any improvements that are being made in the quality of service provided and the Metropolitan police are committed to developing and extending the use of performance indicators.

In 1991, the police have been trialling customer satisfaction surveys in part of the Metropolitan police district and, from 1 January 1992, the surveys have been introduced in all divisions. The surveys seek the views of the victims of crime, road traffic accident victims and even those who call at police stations for a variety of purposes. In most police stations in London, one now finds questionnaires on the counter which ask people to make comments about the service provided by the police in the course of their call. I am glad to say that early returns show that there is a high level of satisfaction among those completing the questionnaires with the quality of service provided to victims.

Those initiatives should not be seen in isolation from other work being done to ensure that we have a police service that can operate more effectively than ever before. They show the commitment by the police to demonstrating their desire to raise the quality of service to the public and I seek to reinforce that.

I see the work being undertaken by Sir Patrick Sheehy's inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards as part of a whole. The inquiry is considering rank structure, pay, allowances and other rewards, and relevant aspects of conditions of service. Recommendations will be made on what changes, if any, should be made to ranks, roles and rewards, and whether additional flexibilities are required with regard to pay and related matters.

I have made it clear that I expect the inquiry to have regard to the different circumstances in which police officers have to carry out their duties in different parts of the United Kingdom. I expect the inquiry to consider especially the responsibilities of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I cannot understand the logic of why the Home Secretary has excluded from the Sheehy inquiry the much-valued and respected British Transport police and the Royal Parks constabulary who have an increasing role in the metropolis. On 1 January, they will take over responsibility for Hyde park, in addition to their other duties. It is an unnecessary affront to those police officers that they should have been excluded from the Sheehy inquiry, which we have not been able to debate in the House because of the inordinate and indefensibly long summer recess.

Mr. Clarke

I am glad to make it clear that their exclusion is not regarded as an affront to those police services. I do not regard those services as second-class services. They are at the front rank of police services in the country. The reason why I excluded them and others who might have been included was simply to make the inquiry manageable and able to deliver its report in a reasonable time. If one opens up questions of pay and rewards in any organisation, it causes great uncertainties as everyone gives their views and waits to see what will be arrived at. To sustain the high morale necessary in the police service, the inquiry should not be an extended and intractable process; it should be completed in a reasonable time.

I told Sir Patrick that I would like his inquiry to make recommendations by May next year. If the inquiry had investigated other police forces, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggests, the timetable would not have been practicable. The inquiry is obviously aware of the particular problems of people such as the Royal Parks constabulary and I have no doubt that the recommendations of Sir Patrick's team will be studied by those responsible for those police forces and will have some bearing on them.

I have asked Sir Patrick to bear in mind the particular responsibilities of the Metropolitan police. We all realise that policing in the capital has its own problems. I am sure that he will do so.

Each year there is a demand for more police officers. I referred earlier to two developments: the publication of the first five-year corporate strategy and the measurement of performance and service delivery. I regard the aims of the corporate strategy and the information about measurements of performance as critical in establishing the level of resources and manpower needed to deliver a service that meets the needs of the people of London at an acceptable cost.

The manpower position is that the Metropolitan police are now recruiting up to their authorised establishment and there are now more than 28,000 police officers, supported by 14,500 civil staff and 1,700 traffic wardens. Through a vigorous programme of civilianisation, more police officers have been released and made available for policing duties—operational duties. Some 1,326 posts have already been civilianised and a further 520 are planned this year. That means that there are now more than 6,000 more operational police officers in London than there were in 1979. There are 3,762 female officers and 580 from ethnic minority groups.

The Metropolitan police have begun a pilot part-time working scheme, I am glad to say, to provide greater flexibility, especially for working parents. As new shift patterns develop, the benefits of allowing part-time working become more apparent, especially when new arrangements such as sector policing place the emphasise on meeting needs rather than forcing them into the straitjacket of the relief system.

Mr. Boateng

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke

I want to get on, because we are having timed speeches in this debate. I do not want my speech to take too high a proportion of the time, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sedgefield agrees.

We should recognise also the valuable contribution made by the 1,440 members of the Metropolitan special constabulary, of whom 186 officers, or 12 per cent., come from ethnic minority groups. Between them, they performed more than 300,000 hours of operational duties in 1991.

Mr. Boateng

Does the Home Secretary recognise, in dealing with the role and numbers of police officers, that, increasingly in the capital and certainly in my borough, in the night hours the police are required to perform what is essentially a social services function in relation to not only battered women but increasingly, sadly, children? What steps does he propose to take better to equip them and to assist them in performing a difficult function which the social services should carry out if they were properly funded?

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are right. The demands placed on policing cover a wide range and go well beyond the investigation of straightforward crime. I am glad to say that on my visits to police stations I now frequently encounter officers who are specialising in domestic violence cases. I am sure that the police find increased numbers of child abuse cases. Again, their training and focus of operations are turning to such cases. I am sure that the process will continue under the new Commissioner and that the style of policing will be adapted to the varied demands that are made on the police nowadays.

There are, of course, huge pressures on the social services. I referred to the hugely increased level of resources available to the police over the past decade. That is matched by large increases in the resources available to social services departments, although demands in those areas always increase. Each year, the demands that we make on the police continue to grow. We expect them to work in a hostile environment, and rely on them to maintain the peace on our streets so that the people of London can live their lives without fear. The Commissioner rightly regards that duty as fundamental to his policing strategy.

There is a personal cost in all this. Since our debate 12 months ago, two officers have been murdered—Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison. Both acted in the highest traditions of the service, putting their duty before their own safety. Each day, officers in all parts of London are putting themselves at risk. Each day, an average of eight officers are assaulted, of whom nearly a quarter are placed on the sick list. Every day, a further 23 officers will be injured on duty, of whom six will be taken off duty as a result.

Recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district increased by 11 per cent. in 1991–92 to 945,300 reported incidents. It is worth recording the fact that the majority of those crimes were against property, with about a quarter of all recorded crime involving theft of and from vehicles. Twenty-one per cent. of crimes are burglaries. The total number of burglaries was 194,900, and in nearly 30 per cent. of cases, the perpetrator was able to walk into the property without needing to make a forced entry—something that I find rather extraordinary. Clearly the tradition of leaving the house unlocked is not confined to rural villages. We are now stressing the importance of taking crime prevention precautions to protect cars, and we should also stress the need to protect property.

Recorded crime is increasing at a slower rate in London than elsewhere—a state of affairs that has been maintained for a number of years. Offences of violence against the person remain only a small part of all recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district, and sexual offences remain at less than 1 per cent. of all notifiable offences.

A number of initiatives show that the dedication of police to specific areas of crime, with public support, can have a dramatic effect on levels of crime. I am impressed by Operation Bumblebee, which has continued to have an impact on residential burglaries in north London, where the increase of 2 per cent. compares with a force average of 11 per cent. and a national figure of 18 per cent.

Since the start of the campaign in 1991, there have been more than 3,300 arrests for burglary in north London. Support in reporting suspicious persons loitering in residential areas has greatly helped and more than 51 per cent. of the arrests were made as a result of calls from the public. Operation Bumblebee has been such a success that it has now been extended to south and south-west London.

I have pointed out that theft of cars and from cars accounts for 25 per cent. of recorded crime in London. The Metropolitan police are involved in a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the problem, and divisional crime prevention officers are encouraged to get involved with local prevention activities.

More than 20,000 Londoners are involved in "Vehicle Watch", a scheme whereby participating motorists may indicate to the police by means of distinctive stickers that their cars will not normally be on the road late at night. Labelled cars which are seen during the voluntarily established curfew period may be stopped and checked. The service is also supporting the secured car parks scheme which encourages operators and users to pay attention to the security of car parks, where about 20 per cent. of car crime takes place.

A bogus callers campaign has given extensive publicity to warning people about the dangers of callers posing as officials from the utilities, tricking their way into a house and stealing money or goods while the occupant. is distracted. So far, nearly 3,000 offences have been cleared up in the fight against this scourge—a 58 per cent. increase. The campaign is now being extended across a wider area of London.

There is a tradition of community-based policing in London and I believe that sector policing will build on experience and increase the opportunities for officers to work in partnership with the community. It will also increase the opportunities for external agencies, local authority departments and community groups to work closely with the police.

The partnership approach to crime prevention is of particular importance for the inner cities where high crime levels, fear of crime and social deprivation seriously affect the quality of life. The police have been working closely with local authorities, voluntary agencies and residents through the Department of the Environment's city action and urban programme which has provided central funding to tackle some of the underlying factors which influence crime. This has helped with the refurbishment of estates in Enfield and Deptford: lock-fitting schemes for the elderly and vulnerable groups in Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham; and lighting improvements in Kensington and Chelsea.

The Department of Trade and Industry's task forces also continue to play a very important role. They and city action teams have helped in a wide range of improvements ranging from increased security, to youth activities and employment opportunities.

The service now has 40 crime prevention design advisers—one for each borough—who are tasked with influencing the way in which car parks, subways, leisure centres, housing and so forth are designed so that crime is designed out and improvements are made to the whole environment.

The number of racial attacks continues to be a matter of serious concern to everyone and, in the corporate strategy, the Commissioner has committed the service to supporting initiatives to respond to attacks upon, and harassment of, all minority groups. The service has introduced a new procedure for recording all incidents in which there is any suspicion, however slight, of racial motivation. I am glad to say that that has resulted in an increase in the number of incidents reported—from 2,908 in 1990 to 3,373 in 1991. That could indicate an increase in the number of racially motivated attacks, although I very much hope that it does not. It probably signifies the increased willingness of victims to come forward and report such incidents to the police, and their increased confidence in doing so.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Will the Home Secretary comment on the case of my constituent, Mr. Natt, who was arrested, then physically abused and racially abused in the most outrageous manner? There is no dispute about the facts, because Mr. Natt happened to have a recorder in his pocket, as the Home Secretary knows. Those responsible were fined or one day's pay was stopped. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? Would the Home Secretary care to apologise to Mr. Natt for that behaviour?

Mr. Clarke

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not wholly satisfactory. I hope that the House will bear it in mind that I do not have the facts in front of me, but my recollection is that Mr. Natt was convicted of assaulting a police officer, and that it was after his arrest that that unfortunate incident took place. It should not have taken place.

Like many other people, I heard the tape recording on the radio. It appears that the officers admitted the disciplinary offence, and the matter was dealt with locally, as a result of which the full facts were not known. I do not think that those who imposed the penalty of one day's loss of pay had heard the tape recording. I have appeared on a platform with the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, who also expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case. I repeat that I wholly agree with him. Such incidents are serious disciplinary matters, and I am sure that both the present and the new Commissioners will ensure that they are regarded as such throughout the Metropolitan police service.

I am happy to report—admittedly, somewhat hastily because time is pressing—on a number of the achievements of the Metropolitan police in 1991 and the first part of 1992. There is a sense in London that the Metropolitan police are making progress. There is increasing confidence in the effectiveness of policing in the capital and in the much better style of service being delivered.

Those achievements have been made in partnership with the people of London. Policing policy is emphatically not a matter for the police service alone. The strong tradition of policing by consent is important, and partnership between the police and the community that they serve is prospering.

The Commissioner and I are determined that, through the initiatives being taken both within the Metropolitan police and nationally, the force should provide an even better service to the people of London, and even better value for money. Sir Peter Imbert has provided an extremely firm foundation for future achievement. From February next year, we shall have a new and enthusiastic Commissioner to continue that work, and I believe that the public of London will give him, and all his force, their wholehearted support.

10.8 am

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)

The purpose of the debate is to review the operation of the Metropolitan police over the year and to analyse with care the current state of the capital's policing. We welcome the appointment of the new Commissioner, Mr. Paul Condon, whose first challenge will be to prevent the number of crimes in London passing the 1 million mark this year, for the first time in the capital's history.

The challenge for the Government is not to pass the buck to the Commissioner, but to honour their promise to cut crime with the necessary action. Mr. Condon is highly regarded. He is experienced with the work of the Metropolitan police. Above all, perhaps, he can be relied upon to build on what are acknowledged as the achievements of the current Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, and of his deputy John Smith who I believe has played a very big part in the development of the Metropolitan police over the past few years.

Sir Peter Imbert arrived at a time when, according to chief inspector of constabulary Sir John Woodcock a few days ago, the problems in the Met had "come close to disaster." Sir Peter had the intelligence to realise that the Met had to change and the vigour and clarity of purpose to carry that through. However, the background of rising crime against which the changes in the Met have been carried through has not improved. In summary, as with so much else in London and the rest of the country, crime has become worse. However, at least it is possible to see the beginning of a clearer and better framework for the future.

The rise in crime has been rapid and seemingly inexorable. As the Secretary of State said, there was an 11 per cent. increase in notifiable offences last year. As I have said, it is possible that notifiable offences will pass the 1 million mark this year. Robberies have increased 21 per cent. Thefts are up 11 per cent., burglary up 10 per cent. and criminal damage up 12 per cent. None of that takes account of the numerous, but unquantifiable examples of harassment, abuse and petty vandalism which have become part of the daily lives of many Londoners. A few weeks ago I read a survey in an Islington local paper which found that more than half the women on a local housing estate would not use public transport at night for fear of being attacked and that an even larger number were afraid to walk down local streets after dark. Young people are routinely subjected to threats and assault and some elderly people are afraid to venture outside their doors or even to stay inside.

That situation is wholly unacceptable. The right of people to go about their business free from the threat of crime is an essential part of the civil liberties of this country and it is currently under threat.

Mr. Corbyn

My hon. Friend has clearly read that survey with some care. Is he aware that a large number of the people who are afraid to go out at night or who have been attacked on the streets at night, particularly bearing in mind racial and sexual attacks, feel that there is no point in reporting such incidents to the police? That is one of the problems with the reporting of crime statistics in surveys and the statistics produced by the Metropolitan police. There is a problem in terms of the need to increase people's confidence in the ability of the police to do something about such attacks.

Mr. Blair

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People's confidence to come forward to the police about such attacks is an essential element in being able to curb them. Partly because of the changes that have taken place in the Met over the past few years, I hope that people will feel confident and do that. Building up that confidence over time is essential so that they can enjoy the freedom from such attacks that they should be able to enjoy.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea)

Will the hon. Gentleman please put his comments in context? Although it is right to refer to fears when those fears are genuine and justified, one section at least of London's transport has shown a dramatic reduction in crime. That section is London Underground. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the management and staff of London Underground for their work with cameras and staff training to reduce crime on the underground which has reassured the travelling public.

Mr. Blair

I am delighted to do that and I welcome the changes. The British Transport police have been working very hard to ensure that that is the case, and that is perhaps one reason why they should be involved more closely in some of the consultations.

There was an air of complacency about the Home Secretary's speech. Of course the Met are trying hard to curb crime and in some areas they are being successful. I shall refer to those in a moment because it is important to balance the areas of success with the problems.

The figure which truly astonishes me—this may be merely the novelty of the position that I hold—is that the clear-up rate is still less than one in five. In fact., the clear-up rate is one in 10 for burglaries. We have a very long way to go. Some people might say, and the Home Secretary by implication hinted, that burglary and crimes against property are not in the same league as violent crime against the person. However, anyone who has suffered a burglary is aware that it is more than just the fact that one's home has been broken into: it is an invasion of what should be the sanctity of someone's home. An understanding of that is necessary if we are to realise the seriousness of the situation.

The police themselves do not escape the personal consequences of crime. It is worth recording that 12,000 officers were injured while on duty. Some 3,600 were injured as a result of assaults, 700 or more of them so seriously that they were off work. That is appalling and we must work very hard on that.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I agree with my hon. Friend right down the line about the fact that policemen are at risk. That was another area of complacency in the Home Secretary's speech. He moved on very quickly after referring to Sergeant Alan King, who was stabbed. We all agreed with his comments, but nothing has been done to improve the protection of the police against knife attacks. The Met has carried out a study into body armour. but nothing has been done and I understand that many policemen are having to buy such armour privately. Should not the Home Secretary have produced proper proposals to give policemen more protection against such attacks?

Mr. Blair

I entirely agree that such attacks are to be deplored and I hope that the Home Secretary has heard what my hon. Friend said about measures to deal with them. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the bravery of Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison who died on active service last year. We remember them with gratitude and offer our heartfelt condolences to their families.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Working parties continually consider the protection and equipment which should be given to the police and all the police associations are involved. I want to make it clear that we all agree that policemen are seriously at risk all the time in London. That is why we do not neglect the constant problem of reviewing the protection available and we shall continue to do that.

Mr. Blair

I thank the Home Secretary for that intervention. He will be aware of the strong feelings on all sides of the House about the position of policemen.

As well as the normal duties of policing, the Met has been responsible for anti-terrorism work. That has been particularly difficult with the recent spate of bomb attacks by the IRA, which have been carried out with a total and callous disregard for the human casualties which have resulted and will inevitably result from such activities. The Opposition treat the IRA's recent attempts to shift the blame on to the police for not heeding warnings which in any event are often confused and misleading with complete and utter contempt.

Certain problems are especially acute in the capital. I was astonished to learn that 75 per cent. of the illicit drugs market is in the capital. That must be a matter of huge concern.

Under Sir Peter's leadership, the Met has developed considerably in the past few years. His two clear achievements have been the Plus programme and the introduction of sector policing. It is easy to dismiss the Plus programme as a series of platitudes and I do not hope, as the Secretary of State did, that it is to be equated with the citizens charter.

The Plus programme has been effective in two ways. First, it has carried through organisational changes which have benefited the force. Secondly, it has changed the ethos of the service. The very acts of publishing a statement of common purpose and values, holding seminars on it that each of the 44,000 staff has attended and holding it up as a standard against which the service is content to be judged affect and change the culture of the force.

It is as well to recognise that some of the criticisms about the police in London and their ethos and culture are by no means confined to those on the fringe. Sir John Woodcock, in his address to an international conference on crime a few weeks ago, made it clear that criticism of the police had gained increasing currency among all sections of the community and that it was therefore absolutely necessary that a change in ethos and culture should take place.

Mr. Dicks

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the terms of police manpower and the cost to the taxpayer of demonstrations. [Interruption.] This is important. There are costs in taking police off their normal duties to police the miners' rally last Wednesday and next Sunday's rally. This Sunday, police will lose time off and work overtime or be taken off their normal duties to police unnecessary demonstrations.

Mr. Blair

That is an absurd point. [Interruption.] Having intervened on me, the hon. Gentleman might at least listen to the reply. Of course they police demonstrations. They also police football matches. There is also activity in relation to the royal family. Unless one is suggesting that all those activities should be banned, they are something that the Metropolitan police will do.

In the end, if there is a lack of confidence in the police, that is not just bad in itself: it affects the efficiency of policing because it disturbs the relationship of confidence between the public and the police. That point has been made by some of my hon. Friends. If there is no confidence in the police and if any section of the public feel that they cannot approach the police with confidence, policing in the capital is likely to be less effective and detection rates are likely to be lower.

We know, for example, that there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the number of reported offences of rape. In a bizarre way, that can be treated in one sense as implying that, probably, more people are now willing to report the offence of rape than they were before. Also, it means that in the previous few years thousands of people have not reported the offence because they did not have confidence. That is not a matter for complacency. We must realise that there is still an immense distance to go in increasing the confidence which must exist for effective policing.

There are other ways, too, in which the force is changing. The Home Secretary mentioned sector policing. That should be fully in operation by April 1993. Again, the purpose is to bring policing closer to the local community. However, the Plus programme and sector policing are examples of what has been the fairly central shift in policing, not in government necessarily but within the police force itself in the past few years. There has been an abandonment of the notion of the police as sole custodians of policy and responsibility, and the adoption of notions of partnership based on shared responsibility. That concept is recognised by many police forces throughout the country. We must build upon that base and ask the Government whether the concept of partnership in the community—to which they pay lip service—is actually replicated in their arrangements for how policing is done. For instance, the police cannot earn the respect of young people unless they have the co-operation of schools and teachers. Members of one of the local London authorities talked about truancy rates the other day. At any given time thousands of children in the capital city may be engaged in serious truancy every school day. That is appalling and it will require co-operation between education authorities and the police.

Local business will often know better how to take crime prevention measures if it is involved with the police in formulating them. The voluntary sector, the youth service and local authorities have a vital part to play in reinforcing the community's ability to police itself. In February, the National Audit Office produced a study about reducing crime in London. It examined partnership initiatives in five of the 69 divisions. It found that there had been considerable success but that much more needed to be done. The programme is in its infancy, but what was not doubted at all by the National Audit Office was the clear conclusion that better partnership—the involvement of local people in policing—works, and that where proper evaluation takes place it is seen to work.

The Commissioner's report draws attention to some of the best programmes of crime prevention in the capital. Apparently there are now 40 crime prevention design advisers to help in the design of estates to try to screen out criminal activity. Some of the best schemes are at Chalk Hill estate in Brent and North Peckham estate in Southwark, where there has been a combination of policing initiatives and local authority improvements with the full co-operation of the local authority.

Partnership in the community then influences other considerations of policing policy. The Home Secretary spoke of the mix of ethnic minority police officers and how it had risen, but the proportion is still very low compared with what it needs to be. That, again, is bound to affect the confidence of the ethnic community in the police and the reporting and assisting in the detection of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will deal with that matter in slightly greater detail. She will aslo deal with racial attacks in London. Those matters are still deeply serious and there is growing evidence that on certain estates in London such attacks are increasing.

John Smith, who is the deputy commissioner— [Interruption.] John Smith is an excellent name. At the recent Partnership in Action conference, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police said: There are many fine examples of individual initiatives undertaken separately by police, voluntary agencies, and local authorities. But if they were to be carried out simultaneously, as part of an overall strategy, I am quite certain they would have even greater impact, and longer lasting improvements would be achieved. He made that comment shortly after dealing with the Morgan report, which was commissioned by the Home Office and entitled, "Safer communities, Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". The body convened by the Home Office was charged with preparing the report, and it did so. Its findings were quite clear—that there had to be much greater involvement of local authorities in crime prevention work, that partnership is what would work and would reduce crime, and that there was evidence that, where those elements of partnership were present, crime was falling.

Ministers have still not responded to the Morgan report on crime prevention. It is their own report and it was published, I believe, in August 1991. We were told in the Metropolitan police debate last year that the reason for delay was that consultations were being carried out. I hope that we shall get some sort of answer today, at least from the junior Minister, if not from the Home Secretary, on the Government's attitude to the Morgan report. I suspect that the reason why the report has not been responded to is that its conclusion—that local authorities have a vital role in crime prevention—was unpalatable to the Conservative party.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does that not emphasise the tantalising half-revelation that the Home Secretary gave? Although accountability to public authorities is important—there is a gap in London—such organs of statutory accountability also provide for information and conversation, which fulfil the very partnership that my hon. Friend is talking about. The Home Secretary not only gave no intimation of whether the role of elected and responsible police authorities in the rest of the country might be changed drastically in one way or another, but in respect of London it was made just a tail-end remark. Does that not mean that his speech reflected much less responsibility than that office has?

Mr. Blair

I agree, and I will deal with that point in a moment.

Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that some of the best responses to the Morgan report were from London Labour authorities? In the London borough of Hackney, the council made a joint response with the police, whereas, surprisingly, in the London borough of Wandsworth the council made a separate response from the police.

Mr. Blair

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that piece of information, which undoubtedly tells us a great deal.

Mr. John Marshall

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the record of several London local authorities is such that we do not want them to have anything to do with law enforcement? Leading members of the London Labour party incite others to break the law. The thought of their being in charge of the police force is unacceptable. We read in the Daily Mail today how dotty Haringey council is. It could not run a booze-up in a brewery.

Mr. Blair

I seem to remember that the Daily Mail told us that we would have an economic recovery following 9 April, so it is not the best source. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's strictures on Labour authorities that he is attacking the police for co-operating with Hackney council in making a joint response to the Morgan report. The hon. Gentleman's bigotry is out of date.

The nub of the argument is that to accept that partnership is the way forward, that there should be policing in the community and that we require a multi-agency approach, throws into sharp relief questions about the best way of allowing local people to have an input in a proper elected police authority for London.

I was uncertain exactly what the Home Secretary said about partnership in his speech today. If he will not take it amiss, I appreciate that he has not read the Maastricht treaty, but I did not realise until I heard him this morning that he had not even read his own speech. He said that he intended to take a fresh look at the matter and seemed to imply that he was prepared to bring some semblance of uniformity to the arrangements outside and inside London. That is entirely right, provided that there is proper local accountability.

The argument for a proper police authority for London is now much stronger on the grounds not only of local democracy but of effective policing. If the consensus behind partnership in the community is correct, and if the Home Secretary believes what was written for him, surely a vital part of such a partnership is the full involvement of people through a proper elected authority which, of course, is what happens outside London. Local people play a valuable role in my police authority in county Durham. There is no question of a battle between police and local authorities. The police recognise that community involvement provides a focus for local feeling and a channel for local input, and that local people feel that their voice is heard and their priorities can be taken into account. That means that the authority can work better and more practically. It is not simply an abstract question of democracy. Partnership is at the heart of effective policing in the capital.

Mr. Mackinlay

I have listened carefully to the discussion about local authority involvement in London. Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Wandsworth and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have unilaterally sworn in police constables to look after their parks? London local authorities have sworn police constables and the Home Secretary does not know who they are. There is no central monitoring of their performance, qualities, training or recruitment. Both in London and elsewhere, there is a hotch-potch of non-Home Office constables. The Home Secretary refuses to recognise that they are a problem, but there are police officers in London within the control of two Conservative councils in London.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. I draw it to the attention of the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and long interventions do not help.

Mr. Blair

I hope that the Home Secretary has noted my hon. Friend's remarks. All that stands in the way of a proper elected authority is the utter fixated dogma of the Conservative party. It has carried its particular prejudice, which was exemplified by the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), against one or two local authorities into a generalised prejudice against all local government. I recognise that this point is controversial, but it must be made. It is the same with the Government's obdurate refusal to recognise the clear link between the environment in which people live and the way in which they behave—in other words, between the society and the level of crime in London.

I should make it clear that no one excuses crime. The first duty of any effective police system is to detect and punish those who commit offences. That is what our constituents want, expect and deserve. However, it is absurd to postulate a choice between individual responsibility for crime and the broader influence of society on criminal activity. It is not abstract sociology, but plain common sense. Not only Opposition Members make that connection; it is also made increasingly by police officers. For example, in February 1992 Commander David Stevens, head of the crime and community involvement branch of the Metropolitan police, said that crime was directly linked to what he called the "social and economic malaise".

Sir Peter Imbert said in a foreword last year: the crime map fits all too closely over the map of disadvantage. This year he said: The continuing growth of crime is a fundamental concern which, in part, I attribute to the marginalisation of some elements in our society. The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one. Mr. John Smith, the deputy commissioner, said in May this year: Any comprehensive strategy to address the root causes of crime must not just embrace the contribution of police and the criminal justice system; it must also deal with the whole range of environmental, social, economic and educational factors, which so fundamentally affect its occurrence". I cannot believe that the Government can turn a blind eye to all the evidence that is building up from those engaged in policing. Sir Peter Imbert put the matter correctly a few days ago, when he said: Effectively then, society is not only more questioning but also more fragmented. Without true social cohesion it will be increasingly difficult for police to respond to the growing disparity and diversity of demands being made upon them. In London, as elsewhere, there are signs that the police are trying their hardest to curb crime. Local people are desperately committed to the battle against crime, but the question is whether the Government are prepared to back the efforts and commitment of local people and police officers. We submit that they cannot do so unless they accept full responsibility not only for policing but for the state of the economy and, indeed, the state of the nation as a whole. The Government's failure to accept that responsibility, and their belief that inaction is always preferable to Government action, leaves us with no confidence that they can turn back the rising tide of crime either in London or in the rest of Britain.

10.38 am
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

I wish to delcare an outside interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. This annual debate provides the House, and the 84 Members who represent Greater London constituencies, with a valuable opportunity to discuss the policing of our area and to question the police authority's policy, which is uniquely vested in the person of the Home Secretary. It is also an important addition to the excellent opportunity that all London Members have, at least once a year, to discuss with the Commissioner and his colleagues operational policing matters in the area that we all represent. It is additional to the opportunity that all London Members have to serve actively on their police and community consultative committees.

I must express on behalf of my constituents their warmest thanks to the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, and to the men and women of the Metropolitan police service, for the way in which they are policing London in 1992. They do so in the face of increasing criminal activity and of offences which were virtually unknown a decade, let alone a century, ago.

I join the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police and to the deputy commissioner, Mr. John Smith. I take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Condon, the chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter Imbert. Mr. Condon is a distinguished police officer, who will bring new vigour to London and to the job of Commissioner. It is one of the most difficult and challenging jobs that anyone could be asked to undertake, and I am sure that, at 45 years of age and with considerable experience of London, Mr. Condon will make a great success of it.

One of the most serious crimes that the Metropolitan police have to cope with—a crime which affects every citizen who lives in London and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions more who commute in to the capital every day—is Irish republican terrorism. Last year, London was the scene of 21 bombings by the Provisional IRA, including the first use of a mortar in our country when 10 Downing street was attacked. I am sure that the House will join me in paying a warm tribute to Commander George Churchill-Coleman for the outstanding service that he has rendered to the people of London as head of the anti-terrorist branch. His work places us all in his debt. He is also greatly admired by the Police Federation and its members in the Metropolitan area. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well.

The range of crime prevention operations and investigative activities described in the Commissioner's report places a heavy responsibility on the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, and on the House to ensure that most up-to-date preventive measures are available to the police. Those include DNA testing, where evidence obtained from human body fluids could greatly assist in obtaining convictions for serious offences such as rape and murder.

I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the police need the right to seek the authority of a magistrate or a judge for the compulsory taking of sample body fluids when a suspect refuses to supply them. There is a curious anomaly whereby a suspect believed to have an excess of alcohol in the blood, who refuses to supply a blood sample, can be charged with an offence as severe as not giving the blood sample in the first place. Why does that not apply in a rape case when the suspect refuses to give a sample to the police?

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

That is an important issue. My hon. Friend may recollect that during the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended the creation of a DNA database, which is essential to the efficient working of the police service. There is one other important reason, with which my hon. Friend may wish to agree: in rape cases or other sex offences, DNA testing eliminates suspects and thus saves police time.

Mr. Shersby

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention and I entirely agree with his remarks. In serious cases, involving murder and rape for example, samples of body fluids can often prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give further serious consideration to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and will consider amending the law on that matter.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby

I shall not give way, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has urged hon. Members to be brief.

The Police Federation also believes that the law on recorded interviews should be changed. Audio-taped interviews have to be transcribed by the police and supplied to the Crown prosecution service and to the courts. I understand that they listen only to extracts from the transcribed tapes. That consumes large amounts of valuable police time. The police want video recordings of all interviews at police stations, which can be viewed by the Crown prosecution service and the courts. I was therefore glad when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to my supplementary question yesterday that one day the courts will be able to see the relevant part of a video interview without any paperwork in between, but that depends as much on technology and on changes in court procedure as it does on progress on our front." —[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 552.] I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the House some idea of the time frame for making such progress and for equipping the courts with the necessary equipment.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I have long campaigned for action to deal with the serious problem of knives, which are all too frequently carried by many young people almost as a matter of course in London. Since I have been parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I have become increasingly concious of the problems faced by officers in dealing with that problem and detecting those carrying knives. I call on my right hon. and learned Friend to set up a working party with the police staff associations to review stop-and-search powers.

Powers were conferred on the police by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which replaced powers under the Vagrancy Act 1824. In the eight years since those powers were replaced, they have proved to be inadequate. I wonder whether the House knows that the 1984 Act does not give a constable the power to search a person, vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle, unless he has reasonable grounds to believe that he will find a stolen or prohibited article. That restriction has resulted in police officers not being able to search a person or vehicle without firm grounds, which constitute a virtual certainty. It is frequently impossible for officers to be certain. If they search a person or a vehicle in the belief that a knife will be found and prove to be mistaken, increasingly they face civil action in the courts. So people who carry and use knives are free to slash, stab and kill without much risk of being detected or apprehended. The law should be carefully considered and we should obtain a better balance between the liberty of the citizen and that of those who seek to uphold the law on our behalf.

There is a piece of equipment that the police need in order to protect themselves and others from serious assault, whether from knives or other weapons—the side-handled baton, which is longer than the standard truncheon and thus has a greater range. It is available in a fixed version, worn externally, or a telescopic version, carried by a police officer in the standard truncheon pocket. It has a considerable advantage over the existing truncheon. The police need that equipment because the existing truncheon, which has been in service for many years, is so short. As a result, an officer using the standard truncheon has to get close to an assailant before the truncheon can be used. In those circumstances, the assailant is often able to grab the truncheon, and the officer can find him or herself being beaten with his or her own truncheon.

Trials of the side-handled baton have been postponed, following the unrelated but nevertheless sensitive events in Los Angeles last summer. There is concern that the adoption of a longer baton worn externally may have implications for the image of British policing. However, I know that the Police Federation and other staff associations are to give evidence to the Home Office on how trials might proceed. Whatever reservations my right hon. and learned Friend may understandably have about the introduction of the side-handled baton, I know that he does not have a closed mind on the subject. I hope that those on the Opposition Front-Bench team also have an open mind and will consider the matter most carefully.

Action must be taken to help the police to defend themselves from the frightful number of assaults on both men and women officers each year, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned. Traditionally, police in Britain do not carry side arms. London, like the rest of Britain, is policed with the consent of the people. The Police Federation wants to keep it that way and does not want the British bobby to carry a pistol, but at the very least we should give our bobbies a baton more in keeping with the requirements of modern policing.

We owe it to those who protect the citizens of London, and other towns and cities throughout the country, to allow them to protect themselves. I know that only too well, because one of my duties as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation is to attend the funerals of officers who have given their lives serving the public. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to Detective Constable Jim Morrison and Sergeant Alan King, who both lost their lives in the past year. I attended both funerals, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), and they were the most moving occasions that I have ever witnessed. Hon. Members should reflect that it is not only the life of a young police officer in his or her prime that is lost; the death is a terrible tragedy for the officer's parents and families, who have lost everything for which they have worked throughout their lives. One has to attend one of those funerals to realise the tremendous sense of loss that is felt. I bring a message to the House from the parents and relatives of those officers. They ask, "Please do something more than you are doing now to protect our wives and husbands." It is a long time since the Metropolitan police were equipped with standard truncheons. It is time that the Government and the House took a grip of the situation and gave every police officer better protection.

Only two weeks ago, the policing of the borough of Hillingdon in which my constituency of Uxbridge is located changed over to the new sector policing system. It is going very well: more officers are being seen, and both the public and the police seem satisfied that sector policing is bringing an improvement. There are eight sectors in my borough, and each team operating in those sectors comprises an inspector, six or seven sergeants, and 30 to 36 constables. Each sector is responsible for policing its own district 24 hours a day. The concept is that the inspector is the team leader. He or she attends residents' meetings and gets to know the people in the district being policed. I welcome that devolution of police powers and believe that it will help the police and the community to work together in a more focused manner. Two officers in the village of Harefield in my constituency have taken the initiative and are running youth activities in their spare time at no expense to the taxpayer. A women officer is running a disco and a male officer is running an angling club. I hope that other members of the community throughout Greater London will do likewise. If young people are not to engage in criminal activities, they must be given leadership and the opportunity to enjoy worthwhile leisure pursuits.

The media concentrate on the crime of rape in London—the hon. Member for Sedgefield cited a 66 per cent. increase—but the media do not always tell the public about police success in clearing up such cases, which deters others from offending. There were eight rapes in the Uxbridge division last year, all but one of which have been cleared up. At least two of the parties were known to each. This year there have been seven rapes, in which at least three of the parties were known to each other and all of which have been cleared up. That is what I call first-class policing. When considering rape, it is necessary for the House and the community to acknowledge that very often the parties are known to each other.

Ms. Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby

No, I shall not give way. I wish to finish my speech so as to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.

I have great confidence in the Metropolitan police. They are doing a first-class job in difficult circumstances and they deserve the confidence of all hon. Members. They certainly have my full support.

10.57 am
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)

In the few minutes left, may I say how much the Opposition welcome the Home Secretary's apparent willingness to reconsider the issue of police accountability in London. He seems to be offering us a review. We must hope that it is full and open —a Clarke review rather than a Heseltine mark I review, although a Heseltine mark 4 might do in the circumstances.

It is important to win recognition of the fact that an elected police authority for London is a means of ensuring, first, that we have an effective system of crime prevention which involves local authorities and does not turn its back on them; secondly, that because there is an accountable, democratically elected forum, the police and the community come together. That forum should be the police authority for London, elected by the people of London. It can tackle the problem of growing crime on the estates, and of racial and sexual harassment.

The authority can also make constructive proposals for police training. I say that because nothing is more important than ensuring that the constables on the beat—and we need more of them—are trained to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the community. That is particularly important in respect of residential burglaries. There is increasingly a perception among those who have suffered the personal, emotional and psychological invasion of burglary that they do not enjoy the response that they need from the police officers who first come to the door.

Added resources are also required for the valuable victim support scheme, which often operates on a shoestring—its funding undercut by local authority restrictions on financing. Those involved in that scheme want to work with the police, and the police want to work with them, but neither is able to do so.

An elected police authority for London is long overdue. It would provide a forum for those issues, and the Opposition will press the Home Secretary to give London just that.

It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday sittings).

Back to