Title

HC Deb 23 June 1998 vol 314 cc938-51

Amendment made: No. 5, in title, line 5, after 'trial;' insert 'to reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful;'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Order for Third Reading read.

9.20 pm

Mr. Michael

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a particular pleasure for me. Having considered one criminal justice Bill after another in opposition since 1990, it is exciting to be involved with legislation that has real potential to change the quality of life for our constituents in every part of the country.

Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the Labour party's determination to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, we have been preparing to undertake ambitious reform of the criminal justice system. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary assumed office, he has won enormous credit and respect for his willingness to take on the difficult issues—not just those that gain immediate plaudits but the tough issues that must be tackled if we are to succeed in our ambition of creating a safe society.

A most exciting aspect is the way in which we are experiencing genuine enthusiasm from the police, local authorities and communities up and down the country. My hon. Friends referred today to the responses of their constituents when we have discussed with them the day-to-day problems that they experience on housing estates, in communities and in towns and cities throughout the country.

Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough)

Last week in my constituency, the local newspaper the Peterborough Evening Telegraph carried reports of most appalling levels of vandalism and harassment in Heltwate court in the Bretton part of my constituency. That area was once described as a state-of-the-art model housing development, but complaints from residents have tripled in recent months. I am sorry to say that the perpetrators of those crimes are often young teenagers and those in their pre-teenage years. Last week, the editor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am on my feet. Is she making a speech or an intervention?

Mrs. Brinton

It is an intervention, and it will be brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not sure that it can be brief now. Perhaps the hon. Lady will make it very brief.

Mrs. Brinton

I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the editor of the local newspaper called the Government to account and asked when they were going to introduce parenting orders and address the problem. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the parenting orders in the Bill will indeed have that effect?

Mr. Michael

My hon. Friend makes one very good point, which is that crime and disorder happen not elsewhere, but in each of our constituencies. It is right that she should concentrate on Peterborough, just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary often draws inspiration from Blackburn and I draw inspiration from Cardiff. It is a serious point that individual communities bear the brunt of crime and disorder, which is all too easy to regard as a set of statistics. I assure my hon. Friend that the measures in the Bill, including parenting orders and anti-social behaviour orders among many others, will make a real difference to the lives of her constituents.

One of the messages that have been brought home during the discussions leading up to the Bill and during our debates on the Bill is that cutting crime and disorder is a task for each one of us. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for making it clear that our task in Government is not to blame other people, but to be a part of the solution, working with the police, local authorities and everyone else. One of the Bill's most important elements is that it gives everyone an opportunity to be involved at local level, through the crime and disorder audit on which a local strategy to tackle crime and disorder can be built. There is to be a close partnership between the police, the local authority, other agencies and the wider community as they set about the task of reducing crime and disorder in their community.

It is especially important that the Bill addresses the problem of youth crime and makes it clear that the aim of the youth justice system is to reduce offending and reoffending. It sets about the job to which we are committed of speeding up youth justice and makes it clear that our measures are part of a comprehensive approach. Aspects such as the final warning and the introduction of the concept of reparation into our thinking about how the youth justice system works will make a difference by confronting youngsters with their behaviour and the damage that it does to the wider community, as well as to their victims. The secure detention and training order will help to bring coherence to the system of secure accommodation for youngsters who have to be detained securely.

Today, we have discussed the problems of racially motivated crime and the necessity of going further in giving confidence to certain communities, especially in response to the concerns of the Muslim community. The Bill sets about filling in the gaps in the system, with the anti-social behaviour order, the drug treatment and testing order and the sex offenders order, each of which is worthy of serious consideration by the House. I am pleased that scrutiny in Committee has led to considerable support for our approach in those matters.

Above all, it is important to recognise that legislation is the start, not the end, of a process. Later this year, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will be established. We are already working on preparation with police and local authorities and issuing guidance for local crime and disorder strategies. Each of those measures is individually important, but, taken together, they mark an enormous stride forward in the fight against the crime and disorder that has created so much misery for so many people. The aim of the Bill is simple: to build a safer and more responsible society. The Bill will help local communities to fight back against crime and anti-social behaviour. It does not finish, but begins the Government's root-and-branch reform of youth justice; and it will help to reduce delays and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.

It is only fair to say that hon. Members who laboured in the Committee and those who participated in debates yesterday and today have helped to improve the Bill. In many cases, we have seen the House of Commons, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, at its best. At times, hon. Members have acted in a way that leads to controversy and argument, which are the stuff of political debate, but the result has been to improve the legislation, which is no small feat, given the easy temptation to indulge in knockabout, rather than positive debate. During the two days on Report, we have made significant further improvements. With Opposition support, we have strengthened the law against football hooligans, increased the maximum prison sentence available for those who breach a football restriction order and given the police powers to arrest someone who has, or is about to, breach an order.

I have referred to the important elements of the protection against racially aggravated offences. The concerns of the Muslim community and those of the Opposition led to the amendments that were considered earlier today to clarify that, under the terms of the new offences, it will be no defence to argue that an attack was based to any extent on religious hostility. Yesterday, the House took a clear view, on a free vote, that the age of consent for homosexuals should be brought into line with that for heterosexuals.

During more than 50 hours of debate in Committee significant changes were made to the Bill. As I anticipated on Second Reading, the clause establishing a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system was removed from the Bill. The Government argued, and the Committee agreed, that such a body would be neither necessary nor desirable. However, the way in which we could deal with advice and guidance by the Appeal Court was improved and strengthened. That has again been the subject of a positive and constructive debate today.

Other important improvements include a new power for the police to take truanting children back to school, or to another safe place designated by the local education authority. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that if we fail to tackle truancy we are failing our children. We are failing also the wider community but we are failing the children who truant. Children who exclude themselves from education are jeopardising their chances of leading useful and successful lives. They are also more likely to commit crime and to cause distress and nuisance. The measure is part of our wider programme to tackle school exclusions and truancy and so help every child make the most of his or her talents and opportunities.

I think that it is because of our partnership approach that our proposals were welcomed by the police. The police have always been doubtful about the idea of being lumbered with the problem of truancy. We have a combination of Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and at the Home Office working together and providing a mechanism that allows co-operation at a local level to tackle truancy and the problems that arise from it.

We have seen added provisions to enable the police, in closely defined circumstances, to require the removal of face coverings. Too often in the past, people intent on violence and intimidation have disguised their identity with balaclavas, for example, causing greater fear and distress to their victims and frustrating the efforts of the police. The powers in the Bill will enable the police to unmask potential troublemakers before violence starts.

We have introduced provisions to clarify the way in which two or more sentences of imprisonment should be combined. We have given the Crown court the power to impose a confiscation order when an offender is committed to it for sentence.

Before we complete our consideration of the Bill, I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friends who supported us in Committee that we have been gratified by the support that has been shown for the Bill generally and for many of its provisions. That can be said of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Bill, when implemented, will help us fulfil 12 manifesto commitments. However, it is not a partisan measure. It is a practical measure designed to protect innocent people and to help restore law-abiding responsible communities.

On Second Reading, the main opposition parties gave the Bill a more or less qualified welcome. I feel that the input of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in Committee, as well as that of Labour Back-Bench Members, however brief and restrained those contributions were, was informed and instructive. Seven of the Government amendments agreed to on Report were inspired by points raised by Opposition parties in Committee. I have referred to several of them during earlier debates today, such as the ability to make an anti-social behaviour order crossing a local government boundary.

I believe that we will pass the Bill back to the other place considerably improved, and we started off with a pretty good Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keen that many of the measures set out in the Bill should be proceeded with quickly so that the wider community can begin to benefit. In particular, the local crime reduction strategy, for example, could be well in place by next April and the start of a new financial year, and a new planning year for both local authorities and the police.

Only once the Bill is enacted will the real work begin. Successful implementation will depend above all upon successful local partnership. It will be for practitioners and local communities throughout the country to make the Bill work for them so as to cut crime and reduce serious anti-social behaviour and thus make their communities safer and more pleasant places in which to live. I hope that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am eager to see that process start without delay. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.34 pm

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

We did not vote against Second Reading; nor do we intend to vote against Third Reading, so I shall not detain from the Scotland match those who would prefer to watch it. Given what is happening in the match, however, they may prefer to be in the Chamber.

We have taken that attitude to the Bill because it includes a number of measures that we want to work. We are at one with the Government in the aims that lie behind the anti-social behaviour orders, the sex offender orders, and the youth care and youth treatment measures. We welcome the policy changes introduced by the Bill. It was refreshing and interesting, although in contrast with what he said in opposition, to hear the Minister of State, Home Office, talk in such admiring terms about tagging and the processes that go with it. My recollection is that that was not quite the attitude that the Labour party took a few months ago.

No one should be in any doubt about the difficulties that stand in the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), whom I congratulate on the way in which he handled Committee proceedings, was entirely correct to scrutinise, for example, the anti-social behaviour orders. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who was a member of the Committee. Someone who scrutinises a measure to discover whether it will work does not have to be against it in principle. I think that the Prime Minister's point on that was completely barmy, and, on reflection, so will he. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is making a remark from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear it. Perhaps he wants to make a speech.

Mr. Straw

I was paraphrasing Shakespeare in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 April. I said, "Methinks that he protests too much." He described the anti-social behaviour orders as dangerously unworkable. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, for educating the hon. Gentleman about the workability of the orders.

Sir Norman Fowler

If that is the only point that the Home Secretary wants to make, we are grateful that he did not make a speech, which we had been looking forward to. He will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere dealt with that point comprehensively yesterday, to the entire satisfaction of this side of the House.

Mr. Allan

Of the whole House.

Sir Norman Fowler

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Even at this moment, the Lib-Lab alliance is breaking apart.

Another area of obvious difficulty which hon. Members must take seriously is youth crime and youth offenders. 1 recently met the Association of Directors of Social Services. It is in favour of the Bill in principle and wants it to succeed, but it pointed to the difficulties of the client group—if I may put it that way—with which it deals. It has provided me with some figures: 50 per cent. of young people under 18 in prison custody have a care background; 60 per cent. of young people in prison custody admit to misusing drugs; 17 per cent. of male young offenders admit to having suffered physical or sexual abuse; 39 per cent. of young offenders in prison custody have a long-standing illness or disability; and 60 per cent. of remanded male youths and 30 per cent. of sentenced male youths have a diagnosable mental disorder.

The Bill creates new ways of dealing with those offenders. However, it also creates new duties for a number of services concerned with law and order. The Association of Directors of Social Services is aware of that and has pointed to the crucial importance of resourcing the new orders and the new approaches that are to be set up. A similar point was put by the Central Probation Council, which said: Every aspect of workload is increasing and substantially exceeds the projections on which government plans and budget forecasts were based. That is the position now. In no way are those bodies against the Bill, but if new duties are to be created, they are saying that, above all, they will need new people.

What applies to them applies equally—if not more so—to the police. In trying to get information on police strength, I was less than impressed by the Home Office's ability and willingness to give that information. I was particularly unimpressed by the Minister of State, who began the debate.

Following an exchange in The Times between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Home Secretary, I sought to ask what I thought were some fairly standard questions. Two weeks ago, I asked the Home Office how many police constables are currently employed in the police service in England and Wales and what is the current police officer strength of the police service in England and Wales.

On Thursday 11 June, after four days, I received the reply: I will reply as soon as possible.

It is slightly amazing that the Home Office was unable to answer basic questions of that kind. That was in stark contrast to the other Minister of State, who answered similar statistical questions on immigration.

Evidently, the Home Office was able to provide the statistics in the end, but only after Home Office questions the following Monday. I was not unbelievably impressed by that either. I do not intend to go into the details of those replies suffice it to say that, at the very best, police strength is levelling out, with a tendency to fall back. That is the fairest way in which I can state the position. Against that background, we are being presented with a Bill which will place new duties upon the police.

Mr. Allan

I was talking to my local chief constable in South Yorkshire the other day, and he informed me that he has decided to place a senior officer—I think of superintendent rank—in each local authority area to deal with the new provisions of the Bill. It is right that he should take it so seriously, but clearly that has resourcing implications for the entire force.

Sir Norman Fowler

That is the point. It is one thing to propose and pass legislation, but that legislation clearly has resource consequences. The Bill obviously has resource consequences for the police. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has pointed out, the police are stretched, and police numbers are not increasing.

I also asked the Minister of State to tell me the real term increase in the budget for the police service in the current year". He gave me not the real-terms increase, but the revenue budgets of police authorities. He said that they would rise by £255 million in 1998–99, an increase of 3.7 per cent."—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol.313,c.646.]

We can take it that the real-terms increase in the police budget is not 3.7 per cent., but that was the question I asked. I assume that either the Minister or his officials are trying to hide the fact that the real-terms increase is much smaller.

Inflation stands at 4.2 per cent. I suspect that Treasury-measured inflation—which is slightly different and does not include mortgage interest—is more than 3 per cent. At the very best, we are looking at an increase in real-terms spending of less than 1 per cent. I hope that inflation will level out and reduce, but if it continues to increase, it will be fascinating to see what the real-terms increase will be as the year goes on.

It is difficult to see how all the measures in the Bill can successfully be implemented without a stronger police service. In our period of office, the number of police in post increased by more than 15,000 or 14 per cent. We responded to the new demands, and we want to ensure that the current Government do precisely the same.

We are giving the Bill its Third Reading, but passing this legislation will not, by itself, reduce crime and tackle disorder. That will be done only if the resources for the new duties, responsibilities and tasks being placed on the law and order services match the Government's objectives. Over the next months, we shall monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. We are not interested in gesture legislation, but in legislation that works.

9.46 pm

Mr. McWalter

I realise that there is little time left, but I should like to place on record a few remarks about the Bill. I am a friend of the Bill, but I am a little confused. I hope that, either in my hon. Friend's reply or in the other place, some of my concerns will be addressed.

The Bill is about crime and disorder. It creates a new category of person: those who need to be ordered. There is much to be said for making people the subject of parenting orders, sex offender orders, drug treatment and testing orders and other such orders. However, I am confused about the clause dealing with orders that deem people to be anti-social. I do not know whether it is easy or hard to be deemed anti-social; I do not know whether it is easy or difficult to become someone who needs to be ordered.

Perhaps this is the vengeance of someone who was not a member of the Standing Committee. I gather that there is a draft elucidation of how the concept of needing to be ordered may be implemented, but I cannot find it anywhere because I was not on the Committee. It is not in the Library and it is not on the internet. I am left with the thought that perhaps it is easy to be a person who needs to be ordered. After all, under clause 1(1)(a) people who behave in a manner that causes distress have potentially behaved in an anti-social manner.

Mr. Michael

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McWalter

In a moment, because my hon. Friend has had rather a lot of time to speak. I hope that he will forgive me if I resist his intervention for a moment.

When I was a child, I used to play football tennis. I realise that, as we are 3-0 down, the mention of football may be unfortunate. We played it with a ball bearing, which we kicked against a wall. One day, I kicked the ball bearing, which went through someone's window. Although I did not mean it—of course I did not mean it—my act was clearly capable of causing alarm and distress. Nevertheless, I did it. The concepts of repetition and of malevolence should be crucial in making anti-social behaviour orders, but it is difficult to capture such ideas.

One would not mind including such concepts in the Bill if implementing it were a matter only of providing an explication of its provisions to our courts. However, the orders will be made by local authorities, and each area will have its own understanding of the meaning of the provisions. Although I welcome devolution of power, and of responsibility for achieving the Bill's laudable objectives, I think we will have to face up to the fact there could be as many interpretations of the anti-social behaviour provisions as there are words in the Bible. I do not think that that was a planned feature of the Bill, and therefore ask for some elucidation of how the Bill will be implemented.

It may be rather easy, or quite difficult, to be deemed to be "anti-social". Clause 1(1)(b) states that such an order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts. Yesterday, when dealing with an Opposition amendment, the House considered the "necessity" condition, and hon. Members agreed that the condition would be very difficult to meet. We essentially agreed that it would be difficult to establish the necessity of an order.

Angela Smith (Basildon)

My hon. Friend seems to have some difficulty in establishing what constitutes anti-social behaviour. He should listen to some of my constituents. In my surgery, they have told me how, day in and day out, they suffer from anti-social behaviour, and how the police and the council are powerless to act. They know the meaning of the phrase "anti-social behaviour". If my hon. Friend will listen to them and to the debate, he will learn the meaning of the term.

Mr. McWalter

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about that.

There are situations in which there is a clear understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour. However, there are also conflicts in which one person accuses another person of harassment, and the accused accuses the accusor of causing distress. Sorting out such conflicts is extremely difficult. We will therefore have to have a much clearer understanding of the provisions.

Clause 1(5) essentially states that an order will not be imposed on someone who can demonstrate that his or her behaviour was reasonable. However, the provision seems very much to be loaded in favour of the articulate and of older people. I am not sure that people will be able to secure themselves against a possibly malevolent accusation of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware also of that type of accusation.

Clause 1(7) makes it clear that someone who is made subject to an order will be put in a nasty and difficult situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore owes it to the House to tell us whether it will be easy for a council to impose an order. If so, many people will be made subject to orders, and there will be a lot of trouble. Conversely, if it is difficult to impose an order, the letter of the provisions will become as dead as that of football restriction orders. Perhaps the orders will be somewhere in between the two extremes. Nevertheless, how will we ensure that there is uniform interpretation of an Act that will he the property of such widely varying authorities?

9.53 pm

Mr. Beith

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has raised some points that Liberal Democrat Members raised in Committee and on Report. We share his concerns. However, I think that he has caused "harassment, alarm or distress" to Ministers and to the Whip, who is already writing out a draft anti-social behaviour order which will soon be applied to the hon. Gentleman.

Despite some reservations—which I shall mention shortly—we think it is well worth giving the Bill a Third Reading, as it has many good things in it. We welcome early intervention in the cases of young offenders, including the potential role of the Youth Justice Board, youth justice plans and youth offending teams in providing constructive responses to young people who offend. The requirement to devise and implement local crime reduction strategies is welcome. Also welcome are the plans to tackle drug-related crime with drug treatment and testing orders, which we see as potentially the first steps towards specialised drugs courts to help break the cycle of drug addiction and crime.

The Bill also provides for greater protection of the public through greater supervision of serious offenders once they have left prison. We welcome the new sentencing advisory panel, the overhaul of sentencing guidelines to promote greater consistency, and the introduction of racially aggravated sentences, which sends a message on hate crimes—although we still see a gap, because religion as such is not included. We welcome what the Government said tonight on that subject, but until the picture is complete, there will be a gap.

There are things about the Bill that we do not like, however. I have voiced my criticism tonight of the child curfew proposals. Other measures, although not necessarily bad in themselves, have been greatly exaggerated in terms of impact. Part of the answer to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead is that Ministers have made it clear, so far as I can see, that some of the orders will not be widely used and will be quite difficult to secure. Hon. Members who leapt enthusiastically to their feet to imply that a new dawn would break because of the availability of these powers were looking at the wrong parts of the Bill. The parts of the Bill that potentially have the greatest value are those that will encourage and enable the various agencies dealing with offenders to get together and work on co-ordinated strategies.

In some cases, the order procedures may be of assistance, but, if misused or if used excessively, they will be harmful and, in some instances, will risk alienating young people who are innocent or who have embarked only briefly on criminal behaviour and could be turned away from it if a more positive intervention were made.

We are concerned about other aspects of the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee the ending of the practice of remanding young boys to prison, despite the pledges given on that. We are anxious to see progress on reform of the youth justice system. It is rather discouraging to hear unsatisfactory elements in the Bill defended because the Government have not yet been able to sort out the youth justice system. We shall be pressing them on that.

I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that perhaps the most fundamental problem will be the resources required to implement the Bill by agencies which are already severely stretched—the police, the probation service and the almost non-existent youth service in local authorities. All those bodies simply do not have the necessary resources, yet considerable demands are being made of them. Cutting crime is a valuable investment, and if Home Office Ministers needed any assistance in telling their Treasury colleagues that, it has been offered from various parts of the House tonight.

A final criticism of the Bill is its treatment of Scotland. It was never good practice to shove bits of Scottish criminal legislation—from what the Minister has tonight described as a completely different jurisdiction—into essentially English legislation. I hope and believe that this will be the last time we ever do that, because a Scottish Parliament will very shortly be dealing with these matters.

Although there was a free vote on it, I personally welcomed the decision to equalise the age of consent. I agonised hard over it when we voted on it a year or two ago. I came to a conclusion that I supported with my vote again this time and I am pleased with the outcome, although I think the Government were given a pretty clear signal by the relatively narrow defeat of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). That shows the extent of the concern that something should be done about predatory people in positions of authority, in relation to heterosexual and homosexual behaviour and in relation to the girls and boys who are in their charge. The Government must regard that as a signal to move ahead quickly with the proposals that they mentioned in response to that amendment.

I must say a word of appreciation to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for their work in Committee. They both testified that it was a rather good Committee and that serious discussion prevailed. We were glad to encounter some liberal-minded Conservatives. Freed from the tyranny of that person who has something of the night about him, they seemed able to express sensible, liberal and constructive views. My two hon. Friends are new to the job and acquitted themselves well—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam who bore the greatest responsibility while simultaneously serving on another Standing Committee and on two Select Committees. We have reduced his load, although that is no criticism of the excellent work that he did on the Bill.

9.59 pm

Angela Smith

It is encouraging that the Bill is welcomed by members of all parties, but the real test will be the reaction not of Members of Parliament, but of our constituents, to the practical application of the measures and how they affect them. I should like to give an example that might encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) to be more supportive of the Bill. Considering the time, I shall be brief.

A father of three came to my surgery. He had suffered harassment and violence beyond what any of us can imagine—not just once or twice, but day in, day out. The police were able to take action on the violence. The men were convicted and sentences were passed, but the day they were released they were back to harassing him and his family day in, day out. His quality of life has been destroyed. He no longer feels at home in his house. He does not feel relaxed; he is fearful and nervous; and his and his family's health has suffered. They are the people whom the Bill should protect. We can all identify one or two similar cases from our experience in which the police and the council are sympathetic—and the Member of Parliament is very sympathetic—but we cannot do anything. The Bill can make a difference.

The most important aspect of the Bill is that it prevents reoffending. Reducing the level of reoffending is the key to cutting crime. I welcome the measures on community safety partnerships. I pay tribute to my local authorities, particularly to Basildon and Thurrock councils, but also—unusually for a Labour Member; this may be the only time that I do so for a while—to Essex county council, for their work on community safety partnerships. I hope that other Essex Members will join me in also paying tribute to Robert Erith, the former high sheriff of Essex. Basildon does not normally take kindly to men in frilly shirts and tights, but on this occasion we make an exception. Community safety was the issue closest to his heart. He worked particularly hard on it and became a great friend of Basildon. I pay tribute to his work, which will continue after his term of office.

The real issue is not just crime but the fear of crime. I bring to the attention of Ministers a report from the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, which shows the fear of crime among pensioners. Some 56 per cent. of pensioners say that they go out less at night because of their fear of crime. They have not all been attacked, but they are frightened of being victims of crime. That is a serious problem. Some 71 per cent. felt that local policing levels were inadequate. That is why all sections of the community have to be brought on board to work together in community safety partnerships. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure pensioners that everyone will be consulted and involved in community safety partnerships.

I hope that my hon. Friend will also pay tribute to those local authorities that said that they would work hard on community safety before the House placed a statutory duty on them. The previous Government failed to legislate on the issue, despite the Morgan report saying that they should, but many local authorities have taken on board community safety partnerships. They will provide the model for all local authorities.

The Bill is widely welcomed. The Minister said that it was an ambitious reform; it is, but it is also long overdue. I commend it to the House.

10.3 pm

Mr. Leigh

I pay tribute to my fellow Conservative Back Benchers in Committee, who sustained our debates with very little help from Labour Back Benchers—;although their presence was welcome.

It was charming to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in action in Committee. For many years, he laboured in the dry soil of the Opposition vineyard, trying to nurture the delicate plants that he has brought with such pride to the House tonight. At the same time, he was uprooting 100 years of Labour tradition in defence of civil liberties. Whatever he says tonight, he will not convince the House or the nation that simply introducing a few bureaucratic orders will make much difference to crime and disorder.

As a recent Home Office study made clear, the real problem is that the key factors relating to criminality are being male and being brought up by a criminal parent or parents. Those who live with both natural parents were the least likely ever to start to offend; the difference in offending rates was statistically significant, for both males and females in that category.

As we well know, the problem with crime and disorder relates not to any particular Bill that we may introduce but to the decline in family values in western society. The Labour party may choose to blame the years of materialism and consumerism under Margaret Thatcher, and the Conservative party may blame the increase in dependency brought about by various socialist Governments and socialist councils on council estates. I do not know the answer, but I am certain that the few gushing speeches that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers trying to convince us that the Bill will make a difference go way over the top.

The former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, described the 27-point plan of the then Conservative Home Secretary as a series of gimmicks to get a headline. That is exactly what the Bill amounts to. Improvements in crime and disorder depend not on the content of the Bill, which will make very little difference, but on the content of the footnotes to the Red Book on the funding of police forces throughout England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) hit the nail on the head today with his pertinent remarks about the very small increase in funding for the police force.

We had some lighter moments in Committee—not least the Under-Secretary's reply to a question I asked him about the abolition of hanging for piracy in the south seas. He said: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the remit of the Royal Navy to deal with piracy in the south seas. However, if it found any pirates in the south seas whom it was thinking of hanging I suspect that it would not seek to bring them to the Isle of Man to do so."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 June 1998; c. 861.] I commend the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has replied to our points with such good humour during the past five or six weeks.

Will the anti-social behaviour orders make much difference? I suspect that they are just another form of the friendly policeman's pat on the back, which we have known and loved over the years. I suspect that they will make little difference.

I do not know whether parenting orders will make much difference—it all depends on resources. I hope that the Bill will manage to speed up youth justice. Those of us with experience in the courts have often commented on the delays—usually caused by lawyers—to youth justice. In that respect, I wish the Bill every success.

I suspect that this is just another well-intentioned Bill. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, which is why there is no point in Conservatives opposing it. Why should we oppose it when so much of it was contained in our own manifesto last year? It is yet another Bill launched by the Home Office—we have had so many in the past—on the stormy seas of the criminal justice system. We shall see it sail away and it will be forgotten in a year's time. Crime and disorder will continue to rise on our estates unless we address the fundamental problems of the decline of moral, social and ethical values in society.

10.8 pm

Mr. Clappison

All legislation concerned with criminal justice and public order calls for especially careful and constructive scrutiny, and this Bill is no exception. I should like to think that we have given it the degree of scrutiny appropriate to such legislation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the part that they played—and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who assisted on the Bill's Scottish measures, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The House will have gathered that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was rightly concerned to delve into every nook and cranny, including whether pirates could be taken from the south seas to the Isle of Man to meet their just deserts. We approached the Bill in a spirit of complete scrutiny, which we believe was appropriate.

All Governments set great store by presentation—I do not think it too controversial to say at this late hour that this Government are no exception. However, presentation is not everything—it is important to examine the detail and to see what happens to it later.

We are pleased that some of the amendments that we tabled were accepted, including amendments on such important subjects as stiffening the law against football hooligans and allowing victims to receive financial compensation as well as reparation—the latter amendment was passed today. However, we shall have to return to many of the amendments that were not accepted, including those on such important subjects as drugs—further action needs to be taken, especially against people who push drugs. We believe that further detailed consideration needs to be given to fill in some of the gaps in the Bill—on sex offenders, for example.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was absolutely right to say that we need to examine the question of resources and whether the Government's good intentions are followed through in practice: I put the Government on notice that we shall scrutinise that question every bit as carefully as we scrutinised the Bill.

10.10 pm

Mr. Michael

I have time only to make one point, and I must combat the message given by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—the shadow Home Secretary—and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), that we shall somehow tackle problems by throwing money at them. The Audit Commission report demonstrated the need for efficiency and effectiveness. The Government have given an increase in resources of 3.7 per cent. to the police this year—that money must be used effectively. The police know that, by co-ordinating the resources of local authorities—

It being six hours and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair:—

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.