HL Deb 25 November 1985 vol 468 cc733-5

3.1 p.m.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is truth in the reports that a £139 billion level in public spending is proposed for next year, and if so, how the Government propose that any cuts shall not adversely affect their efforts to arrest the decline of law and order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)

Yes, my Lords. The Autumn Statement reaffirmed the £139 billion planning total for 1986–87 published at the time of the Budget. Within that total, nearly £5 billion has been allocated to the Home Office—8 per cent. more than planned for 1985–86. That represents an increase in provision for law and order services.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has responsibility, inter alia, to try to deal with the appalling violence and lawlessness which we have seen in London, Liverpool and Birmingham by endeavouring to eradicate the social conditions which contributed to that lawlessness, but that his request for money to deal with that situation has been rejected? It does not look as though he will get that money. Is there any sense in fading to deal with the root cause, by simply providing more money for those in their police officers' uniforms who have to lay down law and order?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, first of all, money has been given to the inner cities in vast quantities over the years to meet the very real problems which they have. Secondly, it is for inner city authorities themselves to deal with many of those problems, but there are cases of local authorities throwing away some of the benefits of the money which comes to them by spending at levels which they know will reduce their grant entitlement and impose extra burdens on local people and businesses. Of course it is a serious matter and it is being treated seriously.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, is the Minister aware that what gives concern to people not only in London, Liverpool and Birmingham but throughout the country is that whereas they may read in the newspapers one day that Mr. Kenneth Baker will be tackling this serious problem of lawlessness and its root contributory factors, which we all know exist, they then learn that his endeavours may never reach reality because the financial support required is not to be forthcoming?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord is, I suggest, quite wrong in his attitude towards the suggestion that just throwing money at problems will always solve those problems. There are serious problems, and they are not problems which can be treated just by spending money on them. There are many ways in which they must be tackled. That is what the whole Government, and not just one particular department, are trying to achieve.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, surely my noble friend is absolutely right. Is it not a fact that the Government are removing urban aid assistance from a great part of the country—parts which have very serious problems, though perhaps not on the scale of those suffered by the well-known inner city areas? Is there not a danger that by such assistance being removed, people living in those particular inner city areas up and down the country will become alienated? Will there not be a risk of further troubles across a wider area of our nation? If I am not mistaken, t hat is the point which my noble friend was making.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the fact is that the national economy must thrive if the inner city economies are to thrive. To secure national economic recovery we must of course rein back on public expenditure, on further taxation, and on everything else. It is no use noble Lords opposite saying that one can just treat those problems by spending more. With regard to the riots we have seen, there can be no excuse whatsoever for the kind of lawlessness which has appeared on the streets. It must be tackled at every possible level.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, it was the noble Lords opposite who initiated the proposal for more spending. The statement I repeated was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Noble Lords opposite are supporting him, but the Minister is not supporting him. It was Mr. Kenneth Baker's idea, and his idea alone. He asked for the money. We support him in his endeavours. It is a pity that the Front Bench opposite does not support him as well.

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

My Lords, I believe the House will feel that the noble Lord has made his point. Perhaps he has done even better, because he has brought to his feet the person who has to deal with this whole matter over the entire field of Government spending—I admit it. I have heard the noble Lord's point and I believe the House will now wish to move on to other business.