HC Deb 07 November 1996 vol 284 cc1352-4
9. Mr. Thurnham

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the measures announced in the Queen's Speech. [922]

Mr. Maclean

The Home Office measures announced in the Gracious Speech have one simple aim—to protect the public. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House last week, they represent the most radical attack on crime this century. They have won wide support from the police and the public.

Mr. Thurnham

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bolton's police force on achieving, against the national trend, a 10 per cent. reduction in crime over the past five months? Should not those figures be published quarterly, as they always used to be?

Mr. Maclean

Greater Manchester police have been successful in reducing crime, as have many other forces, leading in the past three years to the largest fall in crime for 40 years.

If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the success of the Greater Manchester police in reducing crime and in more bobbies on the beat, I am very surprised at his new choice of party. I must give him the Liberal party policy document that I have here, which says: Putting more police officers on the beat will … have little effect in reducing levels of crime". If he wants crime in Manchester to keep falling, I hope that he will change his new party's policies.

Mr. Alexander

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law and order measures announced in the Queen's Speech, particularly those that will ensure that sentences mean what they say, have been widely welcomed in the constituencies? Is he further aware that, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), that is certainly the case? Sentences must mean what they say, and that is clearly provided for in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Maclean

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key measures in the Crime (Sentencing) Bill—of honesty in sentencing and of minimum mandatory sentences for burglars, drug dealers and serious violent and sexual offenders—have been welcomed and are widely supported by everyone except the Labour party, which dithered and sat on its hands on Monday night, was afraid to vote for them and faced the shame of some of its own members voting against them on Monday night.

Mr. Flynn

Did not the Minister of State expose the absurdity of the Government's attempt to reduce the number of guns when she confessed this afternoon that she did not know how many people who, deprived of their high calibre guns, would transfer to .22 weapons? Does not that mean that, if all of them do that, there will be no reduction whatever in the number of guns in people's homes? Has she not exposed this afternoon the fact that the Bill is entirely futile unless it is improved by the Labour party's amendment?

Mr. Maclean

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He is wrong on many counts. He misquoted my hon. Friend, and handguns will not be held in people's homes. It is clearly our intention that the lesser caliber .22 rimfire handguns will be held in secure gun clubs. It is right to say that it is impossible to forecast whether some people may wish to acquire .22 handguns in future or whether even more .22 handgun owners will decide that it is not worth the hassle of complying with the tough new rules and give up their .22 handguns as well. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to jump to the conclusions that he does.