Crime in Ribble Valley

HC Deb 25 May 1995 vol 260 cc983-98

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

6.29 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject this evening, especially as it is still daylight. I trust that it will still be daylight when we finish the debate.

The last Adjournment debate that I had just before a recess was on organ donors and I was asking for a computer so that all that information could be held centrally. I was delighted when, 12 months later, I was successful in gaining that central register, so the nation will be holding its breath to see what I shall ask for this time. I have no doubt that, within a short time, the Government will deliver.

The subject of tonight's debate, "Crime in Ribble Valley", sounds like an Agatha Christie novel such as "Murder She Wrote", "Death of the Tickled Trout" or "Whodunit at Gisburn". Although the debate's title suggests that Ribble Valley is riddled with crime, that is not the case. We do not have an appalling crime rate and we want to keep it that way.

May I start by describing Ribble Valley to put it in context? Just because that beautiful rural area does not suffer from as much crime as other areas, it does not mean that we should be forgotten. It is a personal tragedy for anyone who suffers crime and we should see what we can do to eradicate even the small amount of crime that exists within Ribble valley. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the area well as it is not far from his constituency. My constituency consists of a number of beautiful villages; Clitheroe, which is a larger area; and Fullwood, which is the urban side of Preston. So it has a mix of urban and rural areas. The Ordnance Survey people who make maps tell me that Ribble Valley is at the centre of the United Kingdom. Much is said about middle England these days; if one wants to know what the people of middle United Kingdom think, one need go no further than my constituency.

Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have held three public meetings on law and order, which have all been well attended. People have been vociferous on law and order, not just because they have been victims or know others who have been victims of crime but because they hold strong views on law and order in the United Kingdom generally and want to help eradicate crime throughout the country. The perception is that crime is more widespread than it is, but that does not mean that people should not be worried. Just because news bulletins are not riddled with stories of shootings in Ribble Valley, it does not mean that we should not be concerned about crime there. There is a great community spirit within Ribble Valley which I wish could be extended to some other parts of the country.

I recently sent out a number of surveys on law and order and I have some of the forms with me today. People want to become involved and make suggestions to the Government, and I shall pass the pile of forms to my hon. Friend the Minister, who will be anxious to read the suggestions made on them and see what further measures the Government could take. He may be interested to know that I asked a specific question on identity cards, on which an announcement was made yesterday. I found that 87 per cent. of those who responded want the introduction of some form of identity card because they believe that it will help to crack down on fraud and crime, and I therefore support their call.

I recently had a chat with Alistair Lyons, chief executive of National and Provincial, which issues its own credit and cheque cards. It gives people the option of having their photograph on the front and etched signature on the back. The vast majority of people with National and Provincial cards now choose to have their photograph on them. I applaud National and Provincial for that initiative. It does not charge people for the card, unlike many credit card companies, which take none of those preventive measures. I call on the banks and all card-issuing companies to take that step and allow people to have their photographs and laser-etched signatures on cards. They could all do a little more to contribute towards combating crime.

Those who responded to my survey also believe that identity cards could be used to prevent social security fraud, which has been estimated at about £1 billion. People who pick up cheques at the post office or sign on should have some form of identification to prove who they are. If identity cards would help us to cut down on such fraud, we should take that step. They would also be useful to youngsters who need to prove their age. A card with the young person's photograph, signature and age would mean that off licences, pubs and clubs would no longer have the excuse that the young person looked 18 whereas he or she was only 14 or 13. When I was 20, I was still being refused the purchase of drink in Swansea because I looked so young. An identity card would have proved that I was older than I looked, which would have come in handy for me. So identity cards would be multi-faceted and beneficial in many ways.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on distributing the Viewfinder Survey, which I see on the Bench before me and which he will pass on to the Minister. In the survey, he asks his constituents a number of questions including whether they favour the introduction of a national identity card. The form that I have picked up says "Yes". Will my hon. Friend let us know at some stage—he may not have analysed the forms yet—how many of his constituents favour the introduction of a national identity card?

Mr. Evans

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend, who is interested in law and order issues and has spoken in the House many times on measures that would help to tackle crime, that a staggering 87 per cent. of people in Ribble Valley want identity cards. All the cries from Liberty that identity cards would be a terrible invasion of people's privacy are nonsense. It is an invasion of people's privacy when their houses are broken into, their cars are wrecked and money is stolen from the taxpayer. We should take that relatively simple measure to combat such crimes.

Yesterday I spoke at length with police officers in Clitheroe about burglary and theft, particularly in the villages in my constituency. Sergeant Kirk told me that the vast majority of such crimes are committed by people from outside Ribble Valley. As a result of the Government's continuing investment in the roads programme, we now have a good infrastructure with the M6, the M61 and other motorways. But it means that criminals can come to the area from Manchester, Liverpool or other urban areas, perpetrate their crimes, put the goods into the back of their vans and disappear down the M6 before we know where we are. We are victims of commuter crime. One of the police officers said that, if only we could build a wall around Ribble Valley, crime would be reduced by 80 per cent. I do not suggest that we build a wall around Ribble Valley, but that shows the sort of problems faced by rural areas.

When I first moved into Ribble Valley I lived in a beautiful village called Downham. It is a relatively small village owned by Lord Clitheroe and it has barely altered throughout the years. "Whistle Down the Wind" was filmed there. Having come from Swansea, I found it remarkable that people knew that I was coming before I arrived. They know when people get up, when they go bed and who has called at houses. They know everything about the village because they take an interest in the community. That type of community spirit is absolutely wonderful.

Such community spirit also helps community policing, because policemen know people who live in the village. They recognise strangers and note those who look suspicious. They are therefore able to go up to such people and ask one or two questions. In many cases that alerts would-be criminals that Ribble Valley is not the place for them.

I was told yesterday how the police went to another beautiful village in my constituency, Sawley, and saw a vehicle that looked a bit suspicious. They had a chat with the people in it and it was not long before it had turned round and was on its way back down to the M6. Such community policing plays a valuable role when combined with the efforts of people who live in the community. We can all benefit from that partnership.

Much of the crime committed in my constituency and indigenous to it is the type of crime about which we all get upset—mindless vandalism, graffiti, broken windows and damage to cars. That is not the stuff of Agatha Christie novels, but it upsets locals, especially shop owners, who find that their windows are put through for no good reason. It is not as though all the shops that are vandalised sell jewellery—most of them use shutters—but even fruit shops are attacked. One could hardly believe that people would throw bricks through windows to steal fruit. We want to eradicate such mindless vandalism.

A camera shop, which stocked a lot of valuable products and had spent a lot of money on reinforced plate windows, was also subject to mindless vandalism. It was open just one day when someone took the trouble to try several times to break the windows. Those attempts left deep marks on the windows and the owner of that shop had to get them replaced.

Shops in my village, Longridge, have suffered from huge amounts of graffiti and traders are fed up with it all. One would think that some parents would ask where their children had been at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. After all, we are not just talking about 18 or 19-year-olds, because some of the youngsters who perpetrate that crime are a lot younger.

I thank the Government for the £28,500 grant they have given to Clitheroe for the closed circuit television scheme. That grant is wonderful news. I know that my hon. Friend will be interested to learn that that scheme will be operational from next month. Those cameras will help to reduce the mindless vandalism, graffiti and damage to cars that occurs in town centres. The scheme will be a success, so why can we not extend it to some of the neighbouring villages? I know that Longridge has applied for cameras to be installed and it would be wonderful if that application was agreed because it would help the police to eradicate mindless crime committed there. I am 100 per cent. in favour of the CCTV scheme and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider some of the applications for its installation in rural areas in particular, which would help the police. I was also pleased to learn that, instead of sticking trained police in front of CCTV screens, civilians will monitor them. Those civilians will help the trained police to catch the criminals.

Lancashire police have also taken delivery of a helicopter and Ribble Valley has benefited from that. That may seem far-fetched, but, this morning, Superintendent Clarke of Fulwood police station listed a catalogue of incidents where the helicopter has been used. It has been particularly useful at night when the use of thermal imaging equipment means that the crew of the helicopter have been able to give directions to the police on the ground to catch criminals. That is absolutely amazing. I was sceptical when I first heard that Lancashire police intended to buy a helicopter because I thought that £1 million could buy a lot of other equipment. It has already been used to good effect, however, and even the police on the beat are using their walkie-talkies so that they can get in touch with their station and request helicopter assistance. That helicopter can get to the scene in no time at all. That saves a lot of police time because several vehicles from all over the place do not have to chase the criminals. Quite a few criminals have been caught as a result of helicopter assistance.

My hon. Friend will know that I warmly supported the introduction of the side-handled baton, which has also been used to good effect recently in Ribble Valley, when a number of people spilled out of a pub at the same time and a fight broke out. The Clitheroe police were able to call in a special team which has been trained in the use of side-handled batons and within a short time that crowd had been dispersed. It would not have been possible had those officers been using the old truncheons. I am delighted that the police are already using the new batons. I know that trials are being conducted on the use of CS gas and, should they prove successful, I would support its use by the police.

Dr. Spink

Is my hon. Friend aware that about two weeks ago the police voted 4:1 against being routinely armed? Does he welcome that decision? Does he think that we should impose stiffer penalties on those who intend to commit felonies while carrying arms, particularly those who kill police officers? Would he welcome the reintroduction of hanging? Is he aware that Lord Tebbit has asked the Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. This is becoming a speech: interventions should be short.

Mr. Evans

I understand the thrust of my hon. Friend's questions. I asked Sergeant Kirk of Clitheroe and Superintendent Clarke of Fulwood about arming the police. They both felt that that was wrong and they did not want the police to be armed. The last time a police officer was shot, I wrote to Lancashire police to ask it what sort of body armour its officers wanted and whether it was happy that it had received enough resources to buy it. Officers told me that they are looking carefully at the body armour that will be made available to them. The current body armour is fine if worn for a short time, but in the summer the police would be unable to wear it all day. I would support the provision of flexible body armour to the police as soon as possible to give them protection, because, after all, they are protecting us.

Superintendent Clarke also told me how much she welcomes the new initiative on DNA sampling. It will be a great boon for the police to be able to build up a database of known criminals, because when evidence is left at the scene of crime it will point to those who perpetrated it. Those who argue about liberty have said that such sampling is a dreadful invasion of privacy. Not at all. I support it if it means that serious criminals will be caught. Superintendent Clarke wanted to know why that sampling could not be introduced retrospectively so that samples could be taken from those already in prison—known criminals. That is a good idea.

I could not make a speech about law and order in Ribble Valley without offering my thanks to all those involved in neighbourhood watch, who do a superb job not only in my area but throughout the country. They have given a commitment and they take the time and trouble to go around their communities to ensure that they are that much safer. They give a lot of support to the police and work side by side with them. I have been told of one initiative that was taken in Ribchester, which suffers from a lot of car crime. Those in the local neighbourhood watch, working with the police, sent out leaflets suggesting the measures that people could take to make their cars safer. People responded and the amount of car crime committed in Ribchester has dropped. That is a perfect working example of where the police and neighbourhood watch are working hand in hand. Such crime prevention will also help people to cut the amount of car insurance they have to pay in the long term.

I also applaud the work of the specials, a dedicated group of people who supplement the work of the police. They give up a lot of their time to ensure that law and order is kept in Ribble Valley. They are also supported by some local firms, for instance, British Aerospace, which has given the specials the use of a car in order to liaise with neighbourhood watch. It is a perfect example of a firm in the community supporting that community with something more than just words—a financial commitment. One of my local garages, Syd Brown, is also supporting the specials by providing a car. I applaud both those organisations and other commercial organisations that are backing the specials and neighbourhood watch with money.

I also welcome the fact that the police are going into schools under community action programmes. Superintendent Clarke told me that a dedicated officer goes around the schools talking to the youngsters. They organise poster competitions and quizzes in primary schools, trying to make the youngsters suggest ways of cutting crime and protecting themselves from criminals. It is important to start such education early, and I recommend the tactic to other police areas that are not already using it.

Clitheroe station has recently been refurbished, and new cells have been provided. That is welcome in a small community such as ours, because it means that police time is no longer wasted. Formerly two police officers had to accompany a prisoner to another area; now the prisoner can be put into a cell immediately, and those policemen can walk the beat. A number of respondents to my "viewfinder" said that they wanted more policemen walking the beat.

The old Clitheroe court was above the police station for a long time, but, unfortunately, it closed last year because of efficiency savings. It has now moved to Blackburn. That means that the police must now go to Blackburn, which takes up a good deal of time. Rural community courts should be kept open, even for only one day a week: the administration can be carried out anywhere, but police time should not be wasted.

I am also concerned about drug and solvent abuse. Will my hon. Friend the Minister make a fresh commitment to the Government's determination not to knuckle under and give in to calls from some of the "softheads"—as I call them—for the decriminalising of soft drugs? That is the last thing that we want, because it would make drugs cheaper and more easily available. No benefits would result. We must crack down on people who take drugs, and in particular those who push them—especially those who sell them to youngsters.

Earlier in the year, I was saddened to read that two youngsters aged 15 had been caught taking soft drugs in a school in my constituency. I shall not name the school, because I know that the headmistress is working hard to tackle such problems; it is a great shame that the governors did not support her in this instance. The youngsters were given a second chance, but were subsequently caught again. The headmistress expelled them. The governing body, however, overturned her decision and gave them a third chance. That gave the wrong message to youngsters who go to the school in question, who now have the impression that the school is not all that fussed about drugs. But we are fussed about young people who become involved with drugs. Only one message should be given to them: they will wreck their lives. We will not cave in to calls for the decriminalisation of drugs.

We must take a further step, however. We must ensure that school children are educated about the damage done by drug and solvent abuse. I am involved with a charity called Life Education; it has a number of small units which visit schools throughout the country, supported by community action groups such as Rotary. They talk to youngsters, in language that they understand, about substances that are harmful if they put them into their bodies.

The other day I visited one of the units in London. It was superb to see youngsters responding to the message conveyed by Life Education members. There should be such units throughout the country, educating children as young as four and five: at that age they can be influenced. The same applies to solvent abuse. Last week a 15-year-old died in Preston as a result of such abuse; what a criminal waste of a young life. I agree with the Lancashire Evening Post that we should consider measures to restrict the sale of solvents to young people.

I own a retail store, where my sister imposes her own rule that purchasers of butane gas must be over 21. We must look afresh at ways of restricting access to solvents that can kill young people. I support the newspaper's campaign, and I have sent some relevant papers to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that he will seriously consider new ways of tackling the problem.

We must also ensure that the sentence fits the crime. A shop owner in Clitheroe wrote to me saying that two of her windows had been broken. That had cost her £1,000: the excess on her insurance cost her £250, and the insurance company forced her to install shutters, which cost £600. About £300-worth of goods were stolen. She got most of them back, but some were unsaleable.

So what happened to the person responsible? He was fined £53.40 and given a conditional discharge. I do not want sentencing of that kind in Ribble Valley, and I have already written to the Blackburn courts asking what went wrong. We should be getting tough with such people. Mrs. Carter, who came to my surgery, despairs of the situation. I hope that we will act to ensure that magistrates impose sentences appropriate to the crimes involved, so that others are deterred; but that can be done only through stiffer penalties, which were supported by Ribble Valley "viewfinder".

I have made my views public in my constituency: my constituents know that I am fairly hard on sentencing. I want stiffer sentences, and I think that parents should pay more attention to where their youngsters are. I believe that the use of the cane should be reintroduced in schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) mentioned the death penalty earlier, last year I voted twice for its reintroduction in cases in which it is appropriate. I support the introduction of boot camps for young thugs, which has been proved to reduce the incidence of reoffending by 50 per cent. in the United States.

I was delighted when we acted to stop sentences for young thugs that involved cruises to Egypt or safari trips to Africa. The victims of their crimes must have wondered what the heck was going on; their taxes were paying for those junkets.

Since becoming Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, I have been—on visits, I hasten to add—to Strangeways, Lancaster Farms and Fulwood prisons, and I support the work that is going on in those three institutions. Someone said to me the other day, "We are condemned for having more prisoners per head of population than any other European country, but when they are in prison we know that they are not on the streets committing crimes."

Dr. Spink

Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be glass shutters separating inmates from visitors, and more barbed wire and fewer video games and golf courses in prisons?

Mr. Evans

Indeed. The prison regime should be austere. It has been proved that contact between prisoners and their families or girl friends has enabled them to acquire drugs, and I believe that we should act swiftly to ensure that that never happens again.

I know that the county council structure plan is not in the domain of my hon. Friend the Minister, but it is relevant. I have described the rural nature of much of my constituency: it contains small villages, where there is a community life style. There is a community policeman, and people look after each other. The county council is considering the introduction of new houses on a scale that is not appropriate to Ribble Valley in Whittingham, the site of an old mental institution—it is thinking of putting 1,000 houses into an area that currently contains only 500—and in Whalley Calderstones, where it plans to put at least 1,000 houses. That would fundamentally alter the character of the villages, and would make it much more difficult for them to maintain their good record on law and order.

I back calls that are made when new houses are being built for crime prevention to be taken into account in the design of houses and estates. That, too, helps the police. I praise the work of others who help them—members of neighbourhood watch schemes, special constables and businesses that take the time and trouble, and contribute the money, to assist.

Crime is a war and there can be no conscientious objectors in that battle. In the Ribble Valley the people and the police work as one. Obviously, that does not mean that there is no crime; it means that we will not succumb to crime. We will fight crime wherever it exists and we will support the police when they are defending us. We will defeat the scourge of our society: the criminals who despoil our quality of life.

The Government have the support of the people of the Ribble Valley in the measures that they are taking to tackle the problem. The people of the Ribble Valley will continue to make suggestions to Government and to prod and to push for stiffer action in order to combat the criminals. Middle England has had enough; now is the time to hit back.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on an excellent and informative speech, in which he drew the House's attention to the problems facing his constituency in the war against crime and to the achievements of the police, the community and the neighbourhood watch scheme in reducing crime. Having listened to my hon. Friend's comments on sentencing, I wish only that he was a senior judge.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of death at the Tickled Trout. I have eaten some of its excellent food on a few occasions and I understand that death through over-indulgence at the Tickled Trout is a very real prospect. I am rather disappointed that, although the closed circuit television scheme, which I was very pleased to fund, opens next month, I cannot find my invitation to perform the opening ceremony and enjoy lunch at the Tickled Trout.

My hon. Friend made a number of interesting points that he believes could help us win the war against crime in the future, not only in Ribble Valley but in the country as a whole. Before dealing with the specific points made by my hon. Friend, I re-emphasise the fact that crime is falling in Ribble Valley. I share my hon. Friend's view that we cannot be complacent about that; we cannot say that we have won the battle and that it is time to go home, because even one crime is a crime too many. Even if we lowered the crime rate, it would still be far too high.

None the less, in the past two years we have had considerable success in cutting crime in this country and I believe that we can regard Ribble Valley as a success story. It is a success that I very much hope will continue; I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in a future debate that there has been a further and welcome fall in the crime rate in his constituency.

I am well acquainted with the attractions of my hon. Friend's constituency. Reaching Ribble Valley from Penrith is just a matter of going down the M6 and turning left—and I do not often turn left. I shall try to help hon. Members who are not familiar with it to picture the area. Ribble Valley is delightful. It is largely a rural area and 70 per cent. of the Ribble Valley has been designated as being of outstanding natural beauty.

It has undulating countryside, hills, valleys, gushing streams, lots of sheep, excellent pubs with good beer, and—of prime importance—an outstanding Member of Parliament. With all that, it has a population of just over 50,000—although it increases in the summer months as, not surprisingly, a growing tourist trade is attracted there by good motorway communications. But there is a down side: the motorway network also brings criminals from outside the area. I do not think that my hon. Friend will disagree when I say that the Ribble Valley has some home-grown criminals as well.

As my hon. Friend has reminded us, the major centre in Ribble Valley is Clitheroe, a bustling market town which has certainly shown itself to be wide awake when it comes to crime prevention. I am pleased to say that crime prevention throughout the Ribble Valley is paying off: figures for reported crime in the first four and a half months of the year show a substantial reduction compared with 1994.

Burglary is one of the crimes about which most people worry. Our latest figures run from the beginning of the year to May, and they show that there were just 100 domestic burglaries during that period—a decrease of 70 on the same period last year. Vehicle crime in Ribble Valley has also shown a substantial reduction. During the same five-month period, it fell from 356 to 306 cases. Regrettably, there was a slight increase in violent crimes from 20 to 23 cases, although I am pleased to say that none of them was classified as serious. There were 14 additional cases of non-domestic burglary.

Even taking the increase in those two categories into account, overall there has been a 13 per cent. fall in crime figures in Ribble Valley so far this year, with a total of 818 crimes reported to the police. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will join me in hoping that the improvement will be maintained and in congratulating Lancashire constabulary on its excellent success.

The House should draw encouragement from the fact that the improvement in crime figures for the Ribble Valley is part of the wider improvement that we have experienced nationally. I remind the House that recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 5 per cent. in 1994. Taken with the 1 per cent. fall in 1993, it is the largest percentage fall over a two-year period for 40 years. Lancashire as a whole also had a 5 per cent. drop. That proves that, provided we work together, we can reduce crime. That is why measures to tackle crime remain at the top of the Government's agenda.

Our strategy for dealing with crime is clear and is based on four main strands. First, we must do all that we can to prevent crime. Secondly, we must do all that we can to help the police to catch criminals. Thirdly, we must ensure that when suspects have been caught they are tried fairly and speedily. Fourthly, we must ensure that, if criminals are convicted, the courts have the powers that they need to deal with them appropriately and effectively.

The Government believe that crime prevention should involve everyone in the community: it is not something that can be left to the police or to other specialists. This is why the Government have promoted the partnership approach to crime prevention, encouraging local communities—including local authorities, business and the voluntary sector—to work alongside the police to try to reduce crime.

In response to guidance, support and encouragement from the Government, many successful local crime prevention partnerships have been formed. I am pleased to say that that is precisely what is happening in Lancashire as a whole and in the Ribble Valley. The Lancashire Partnership Against Crime was formed in 1992 as the major crime prevention initiative within the county, with the objective of bringing together commercial companies and local authorities to increase participation in crime reduction work.

The partnership is managed by a board that is made up of representatives from member organisations and it has been involved in a variety of initiatives, including steps to improve hospital security, anti-burglary measures and running community safety patrols. It has also helped to produce security advice for licensees.

A total of 28 police officers work full time on crime prevention in Lancashire and two senior crime prevention panels organise a number of local campaigns. Lancashire constabulary employs a full-time co-ordinator to run the partnership from police headquarters. I have met the co-ordinator and he is a superb operator.

The county also has an initiative to involve young people in community safety. School community action teams, known as SCATs, are proving successful. There are 53 SCATs in the county and I will briefly outline projects that they have undertaken in Ribble Valley. It is by no means a comprehensive list. West Craven high school has adopted and painted a vandalised bus shelter. The school has also had a property marking scheme which encourages people to put their postcodes on their property. At Clitheroe high school five students have undertaken a survey of drug use and abuse, which I am told was "excellent." The police have also asked children in a local school for those with learning difficulties—although I believe that it is outside my hon. Friend's constituency—to help with the clerical tasks involved in one of their crime prevention campaigns.

Other schools in the area, including Ribblesdale high school, have been involved in promoting the vehicle watch scheme and the 25 scheme. I remind the House that the vehicle watch scheme encourages motorists who do not expect to use their cars between midnight and 5 am to put special stickers on the front and rear windows of their vehicles. If the police notice a vehicle with a sticker on the road at that time, they are authorised to stop the vehicle and to question the driver.

The 25 scheme is similar. It involves putting a sticker in the window of a vehicle when a driver under the age of 25 is not normally expected to use that car. I think that the schools should be commended for taking part in that project—although I would not recommend it to my youthful-looking hon. Friend, who would be stopped all the time because the police are bound to think that he is under 25.

An important part of the partnership approach to fighting crime is the use of special constables, and my hon. Friend was correct to mention them. I understand that in Ribble Valley both they and traffic wardens are playing an important role in preventing vehicle crime. While on patrol, special constables and traffic wardens who notice that a car has been left insecure or with valuables visible note the car's details so that the owner can be sent a letter giving him or her details of how to improve vehicle security measures.

The Government have set a target of increasing special constables from 20,000 to 30,000. We consider them an excellent supplement to the regular police force. They are not a replacement, and there is no question of reducing the regular police force if we recruit specials, but it is good for people to volunteer. Next to joining the volunteer reserve forces, serving as a volunteer constable is the highest level of volunteering that any British citizen can do. They are a great body of men and women. I pay the highest tribute to special constables up and down the country.

My hon. Friend said that technology is also being used to fight crime in Clitheroe. The CCTV system, consisting of 13 cameras, is currently being installed in Clitheroe, and that was funded partly through the Home Office CCTV competition that I instituted. I understand that the local police are optimistic that the scheme will deter crime in the town centre and help them to apprehend suspects. They should be optimistic as in every other place where I have seen CCTV schemes in operation—in big cities and smaller towns—it clearly deters criminals, catches criminals and, by God, it helps to convict them. Newcastle police tell me that of 350 people—of course, the figure goes up every week—who they had arrested in the city centre because they had caught them on video, 347 pleaded guilty and had not a leg to stand on. Not only is justice being done, but it saves the courts some considerable time and effort and, no doubt, helps the legal aid fund as well.

There are also plans to provide local shops most likely to experience shoplifting with two-way radios. I have seen similar systems in operation and they are excellent. It will enable shopkeepers to alert the police, each other and the monitoring station if they notice suspicious behaviour.

My hon. Friend suggested that the scheme should be introduced in Longridge. I understand that that is under local consideration, but the Government have always maintained that CCTV should be targeted where it is most needed. It is a long-term commitment involving the local authority, local enterprise and the police.

Clitheroe was successful in gaining funding through the CCTV challenge. The criteria for bids were set out in guidance issued to all local authorities and police forces last November. Under the terms of the challenge, bids are to be matched by local funding, including private sector funding where appropriate. The quality of the bids was very high. No one factor was decisive in the final choice and there were 106 winners all told, including 13 from the north-west. There is nothing to stop Longridge going ahead with a CCTV scheme, but my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot promise any additional funding at present or say whether we will instigate similar challenge schemes.

My hon. Friend mentioned funding in Lancashire. I am sure that hon. Members agree that the realistic expectation of being caught is one of the best deterrents against crime. An additional £9.82 million has been made available to Lancashire for policing purposes this year—an increase of 6.7 per cent. which compares very favourably with the national increase, and even that was way above the level of inflation. Not every other Government Department or local council services department can say that its funding has been a generous as we made police funding this year because we recognise the importance of law and order. It is a good settlement for the police at a time of constraint on public expenditure.

My hon. Friend mentioned the helicopter. I am a great enthusiast for police helicopters, and I encourage him to boast about it publicly. Other police forces must not be shy about telling people that they have a helicopter. It is not an expensive waste of money or an expensive toy; it is an essential policing tool to apprehend today's highly mobile criminals. I have seen the figures, I read the statistics and I have seen police helicopters in operation.

No armed robber escapes from a police helicopter. Once the equipment on a police helicopter locks on to a car, no vehicle can outpace it. I know that one or two Porsches might go faster, but a helicopter can cut the corners.

Not only are helicopters good at catching criminals, but they reduce the chance of high-speed chases. They lower the accident rate and have other features, such as thermal imaging, so that on dark nights they can find people who have wandered off or had accidents. They act as mobile command platforms if there is a major incident or accident. They are wonderful pieces of kit. The Government are keen to fund as many as possible. We have expanded the number over the past few years and I advise police forces not to be embarrassed if they have a helicopter; it is a vital policing tool these days.

My hon. Friend also mentioned secure design or improving design. I spent most of today in Staffordshire opening the county's first industrial park, which has been awarded a "secured by design" certificate. "Secured by design" is a wonderful concept that I would encourage every architect and builder to follow. It is no more expensive to build a house securely with proper locks or to build an entire housing estate with a sensible, decent design instead of the ghastly structures that people build, which no doubt win design awards but have rabbit runs or rat runs everywhere, front doors backing on to back doors and cars scattered all over the place.

Some of those designs encourage crime, as we saw from the ghastly 1960s and 1970s housing with archways and pedestrian walkways that are now—at great cost—being demolished, redesigned and returned to a sensible structure. I pay tribute to those who dreamt up the secured by design project and I intend to host a conference later this year of police architectural liaison officers and more architects and designers to encourage them when they are designing housing estates or ordinary buildings, factories and office blocks to think about security at the design stage, as it is cheaper in the long run.

My hon. Friend mentioned DNA sampling. The Government have been responsible for a number of other measures that are designed to enable the police to do their job more effectively. I am keen on using all forms of technology. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced the possibility of DNA sampling. The world's first national DNA database is now up and running, and once again little old Britain got there first. In so many cases, whether it is automated fingerprint computer recognition systems, where the Americans may have the computer, but we invented the data which make it work, or DNA sampling, the British police service is in the lead the world over. Our database has now come on stream and will result in many people being caught and convicted and people regard it as the greatest policing breakthrough since fingerprints. It is the greatest tool that the police can have.

My hon. Friend mentioned the risks that serving police officers take in their operations against crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I share his concern. It is terribly important for officers to have suitable protection against those dangers.

One of the first jobs that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did when he came to the Home Office two years and three days ago was to authorise proper scientific assessment of the side-handled baton. Street trials of the expandable version were encouraging, and in June 1994 it was formally approved by the Home Secretary. In November, the Home Secretary, as the police authority for the Metropolitan police, agreed to the issue of straight batons up to 26 in long, and he has given his support to the side-handled baton following a proper programme of evaluation to ensure that it meets officers' needs. At the same time, he gave his support to other chief constables who wished to introduce similar batons.

Since last year, most police forces have replaced the little, short traditional truncheon. I understand that Lancashire has had a programme running for the past four or five months to train officers in the use of side-handled batons and that has been widely welcomed in the force. The new batons can make a big difference to an officer's ability to carry out his duties, both in terms of the protection they offer and the greater confidence that results from it.

We welcome the side-handled batons and the extendable ones. We are receiving information now and we shall collate it. Much of it is anecdotal as the batons have been issued only recently, but we understand that injuries to officers in situations where they would normally have anticipated injuries have declined, that more prisoners are coming quietly and that some minor riots and disturbances have been avoided because the officer appears with a worthwhile baton rather than the tickling stick that the police had for 100 years.

My hon. Friend mentioned body armour. Of course, we are concerned scientifically to evaluate the best possible armour, but despite some of the claims in certain magazines I must tell my hon. Friend that no one has yet invented a body armour that protects against both bullets and stab wounds. There are some good vests which are bullet resistant; there are others which are stab resistant. So far, putting the two together has not resulted in anything that a bobby could wear for more than half an hour at a time. We shall continue to evaluate all kit so that chief constables will be able to know which body armour works and what its limitations are. They can then ensure that their officers are as well protected as possible.

Sentencing is important too. Effective action against crime does not stop with apprehending the suspect. We have ensured that the courts have all the powers they need to deal appropriately with offenders who come before them. My hon. Friends have supported us in the Division Lobby time after time on this issue. Parliament has taken its responsibility seriously to ensure that the powers are available to the courts—if only they would use them.

Severe sentences are available for serious crimes. I shall be careful about what I say when discussing the Executive and the judiciary, but it has been noticeable—judging by the public and the press outcry—that most of our constituents think not that Parliament has failed in its duty to provide adequate sentences but that lenient sentences are handed out. That dismays people; and if the House had not introduced powers to refer over-lenient sentences to the Attorney-General, they would be even more dismayed.

The clear message to those responsible for sentencing is that they must not disappoint the people of this country, who will get very indignant if they feel that sentences are inadequate.

My hon. Friend also mentioned capital punishment. He knows that I am an awful wet on that issue. My wife is much more robust, and starts with hanging for those who have double parked. I would begin with more serious offences—and with those who have been found guilty. My hon. Friend knows that the subject has been debated in the House, and that I share his view that we should have the ultimate deterrent.

My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to another side of youth culture in his constituency. Unfortunately it appears that there is a problem with solvent abuse in some schools, and my hon. Friend has called for a change in the law. Under existing law, the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 makes it an offence for a person to sell a substance such as glue to a person under 18 if he knows that the substance or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for the purpose of causing intoxication. It was interesting to learn that my hon. Friend's sister sets the limit at the higher age of 21. The primary purpose of the law is to counter the activities of unscrupulous retailers. Enforcement is a matter for the police. By 1993 there had been 70 prosecutions under the Act, 45 of which resulted in findings of guilt.

On this and many other technical matters to do with drugs, the Government are advised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which recently published a report on volatile substance abuse. The report makes no recommendations for changing the law, but I am happy to look at all the information from the campaign on solvent abuse which my hon. Friend is leading. I will happily study it and bring it to the attention of my colleagues who are responsible for drugs in the Home Office.

The one firm assurance that I can give my hon. Friend—and will always give the House as long as I am a Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend is Home Secretary—is that we shall never legalise any drugs that are currently banned. I know that there are sophisticated trendies who say that they can smoke a bit of pot after dinner parties in Hampstead—they can handle it. No doubt they can. Many people can handle a few glasses of port after dinner, but millions cannot. It is no good telling our kids that some drugs are really bad for them, some are in the middle and some are all right. That is a confusing message. Our message is simple: all drugs are harmful. It is nonsense to say that cannabis is not harmful. It may not be as bad as cocaine, but it is still harmful.

Many kids at the moment are able to resist drugs because they can say that they are illegal—they do not want to do something illegal. That can provide their excuse when they are refusing drugs offered by other kids. We shall never undermine those kids by removing the legal sanction. I remind the House that not a single chief constable among the 43 police forces of England and Wales for which I am responsible thinks that we should legalise drugs.

My hon. Friend went on to mention ID cards, suggesting that they could help to solve the problem of solvent abuse, and other crimes. We know that there is widespread public interest in the issue and that there is a wide range of views on what they would achieve and on how any scheme should operate. So much is clear from today's press articles. The Green Paper that we published yesterday will allow a full national debate before any final decision is taken. I agree with my hon. Friend that ID cards could help to prevent the illegal sale of age-restricted goods such as solvents, as well as helping to prevent crimes involving the use of a false identity, such as cheque and credit card fraud. But the Government do not believe that ID cards would be a general panacea for all crime—let us not kid ourselves about that.

That is why we need to consider the issue carefully and explore all its aspects. This is a genuine consultation exercise of the kind that we always intended to hold. The Government are setting out the options—naturally, that has been presented as a U-turn. It is nothing of the sort. We want to listen to genuinely held views about the sort of identity card that we should have—if we should have one at all—and about the driving licence and social security options.

I look forward to the outcome of this important national debate and if necessary to taking action on it.

We shall continue to do all that we can to reduce crime and to protect the public. That is one of the first duties of any Government. But the responsibility for preventing crime does not rest solely with the Government, the police, local councils or any single organisation. Respect for the law will be encouraged when everyone joins in—families and parents, schools, the Government, the local community, the business sector, people playing their part in neighbourhood watch schemes and in the special constabulary. If everyone plays his part we can get the crime figures down.

The message of the falling crime figures of the past two years is that it is no use running around wringing our hands and saying that it is all too difficult—where should be start? Nothing will get done that way. But if we tackle burglary and the police mount operations such as Operation Bumblebee, Operation Claw, the Bear Bites Back operation in Warwickshire, Operation Spider and Operation Gemini, involving the community and businesses in genuine partnerships against crime such as the one in Lancashire, we can bring down crime sector by sector. That has to be the right approach.

The community in Ribble Valley are playing an excellent part, and I would ask my hon. Friend to pass on my hope to his constituents that they will keep up the good work and keep supporting their police force, who do an excellent job. I trust that they will continue to shoulder part of the burden, as all good citizens should. What we can do in Lancashire we can do in other parts of the country as well—although my hon. Friend might disagree with me about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.