HL Deb 26 February 1986 vol 471 cc1049-57

3.1 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the increase of serious crime in London, particularly the trafficking of narcotics, and to the case for the provision of additional resources to support local crime prevention schemes and for a significant increase in the establishment of the metropolitan police; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It deals with the dangerous situation in relation to serious crime that now exists in London, and it relates to London for two principal reasons—first, because it is in the Metropolitan Police District that the crime situation in this country is at its most severe; and secondly, because the Home Secretary is the police authority for London and is therefore directly accountable to Parliament for the work of the metropolitan police.

Let me say this at the outset. I assume that all serious-minded people are equally concerned about the problem of law and order. There is, as we all know, deep public disquiet about what is happening in our streets. I can think of no issue on which routine party point scoring is less appropriate. I do not propose, nor do my colleagues, to become involved in the childish pretence that the arrival of a new Government or the departure of another will have any significant effect on the level of serious crime. Crime has risen during the lifetime of Conservative Governments as it has under Labour Governments. By all means let us criticise Governments for mistaken policies—indeed, some of us will do so this afternoon—but on this issue there is I believe an overwhelming case for endeavouring to match the gravity of the situation with some attempt to create a spirit of national consensus.

Serious crime in London has risen in the past decade by more than 70 per cent. During the lifetime of this Government—until the end of 1984—it rose from 557,000 offences to rather more than 716,000. And it is not just the number but the character of offences that has increased in seriousness. The number of robberies has doubled in that period—up from 6,200 to 13,600. The number of street robberies of personal property doubled as well, with young hooligans often attacking elderly women waiting in bus queues. But the situation now confronting us is even more disturbing than this. For, as the House is aware, the country is now experiencing a most alarming increase in drug abuse.

Heroin has been pouring into the United Kingdom. Seizures by the Customs and Excise have increased from 43 kilograms in 1979 to 312 kilograms in 1984—an increase of more than 700 per cent. But even if we are as successful as the United States customs, we must assume that we are probably intercepting only somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. of the heroin that is entering the country. That means that in 1984 alone, and dealing with heroin alone, heroin with a street value of more than £350 million was introduced into this country. The effects of this are two-fold. First, we are experiencing the consequences of the success of these criminal entrepreneurs. In many parts of London, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, substantial numbers of young people have become hooked on heroin. Many, though not all, live in declining inner city areas. Again, many, though not all, are unemployed. And if they are not unemployed when they begin, they certainly are by the end, for heroin addiction makes any pattern of regular work quite out of the question.

However, to feed their addiction they probably need somewhere in the region of £150 a week. They can obtain that in only one way—that is, by criminal conduct, often by violent street crime. It is because of this relationship between addicts and criminal conduct that I think there is a real risk of an escalation in the number of robberies in our streets. In the United States, where the problem is a great deal more severe, a very high proportion of the entire prison population is there for drug-related offences. I remember going to a prison outside Boston, in Massachusetts, where the warden told me that in the prison probably more than 70 per cent. of the inmates were there for drug-related offences. In this country at the moment the proportion is a great deal smaller, but it is growing. In one Crown Court in London, where 10 years ago I doubt very much whether more than perhaps 1 per cent. of offenders coming before the court would have been there for drug-related offences, the presiding judge told me quite recently that the proportion is now 17 per cent., and that number is growing remorselessly.

I turn now to the second consequence of the operation of the drug entrepreneurs: that is, the development of a number of sophisticated criminal syndicates in this city, where, because of the very substantial sums of money now at their disposal, high quality criminals are now moving easily from one type of serious crime to another. Those involved in drugs move in and out of other forms of criminal activity such as armed robbery. We have to bear in mind that 75 per cent. of the armed robberies in the United Kingdom take place in the Metropolitan Police District. They move into sophisticated fraud; they move into counterfeit currency operations. Thus, it is quite impossible to discuss the problem of drugs in isolation. It is now essential to the functioning of the serious crime industry—and industry it is—in London.

Faced with this dangerous situation, we have to examine the resources that are available to deal with the threat posed by the escalation in serious crime. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he comes to reply at the end of this debate, will tell us that the strength of the metropolitan police has risen by more than 4,000 men and women during the lifetime of the present Government. That is indeed entirely true. It is also true that the overall strength of the British police service rose by more than 12,000 men and women during the period of the previous Labour Government. Nevertheless, there are now—I give this point entirely to the Government—these additional resources available in London. Without them the situation would, I believe, be desperate. But, unhappily, the net increase in the strength available to the metropolitan police is not even remotely approaching that figure of 4,000. Let me set out the stark figures so that the House is well aware of what we are debating this afternoon.

As a result of the overtime restrictions introduced by the Government as an economy measure, many police duties, such as giving evidence in court, now have to be included in the regular pattern of day to day police duties. No longer are they treated as overtime. As a result of that policy introduced by the Government there has been a sharp cut in the patrol strength available to police commanders.

I take just one example—the loss of the last worked rest-day was equivalent in itself to the loss of 1,200 police officers in London. That means that there are fewer policemen on the beat; fewer policemen to do extremely important work on crime prevention; and even 5 per cent. fewer policemen on the Fraud Squad compared with when the Government came into office. That is despite the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on the general fraud situation in this country, which is becoming a matter of increasing seriousness. It is because of an overall shortage of resources that many specialist units are having to be stripped so far as their numbers are concerned.

There has also been, for very understandable reasons, a need to supplement the strength of other units in the metropolitan police. There has been the creation of district support units introduced—rightly, in my view—after the disturbances in 1981 as an essential instant response measure. Those units take up 750 men on a permanent basis. The establishment of the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department—a most important unit, given the ever-present risk of terrorist offences in London—took another 700 men and women off normal patrol duties.

One has only to run through some of the figures to show that the supposed increase in the strength of the metropolitan police to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be referring at the end of this debate is cancelled to a very substantial degree by cuts in the effective strength caused by overtime reductions and by other steps that have been taken in the same direction, and which by themselves total 3,250 officers net on the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force.

I will demonstrate the gravity of the problem by giving these figures. Fifty years ago there was on average one reported crime per police officer per year in London. Twenty years ago that figure was 11 crimes per officer. Ten years ago it was 17 crimes per officer, and last year it was 28 crimes per officer. The thin blue line is getting dangerously thinner.

I would not for a moment suggest that the police service should have unlimited resources. No part of the public service can possibly be immune from the need to accept cost limitations imposed by government. What I do argue is that there is now an urgent requirement for public expenditure priority to be given to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe that I have a powerful ally, because at the Conservative Party Conference last year the Prime Minister said (and I quote her directly): If they need more men,"— and she was referring to the police service overall— more equipment, different equipment, they shall have them. We don't economise on protecting life and property".

The House will appreciate that that pledge was entirely unqualified. It was unconditional. I hope that as a result of it we will hear from the Government tonight that the Home Secretary proposes to live up to the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech and announce, following the review that is now taking place, that he will agree forthwith to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe, as I have indicated, that the case for that increase is now overwhelming.

However, policing in London is about a great deal else besides simply numbers. It requires a climate of co-operation between police and public. The police are not an alien force imposed by government. They are members of the community in uniform. That climate of co-operation is essential if we are to maintain civil tranquility. It is vital if we are to meet the challenge posed by violent, dangerous men who prey on the weak and powerless.

Such collaboration requires two things. First, it requires professional conduct by the police themselves. They have an immensely difficult task. They are still, in the main, unarmed. They are doing, as we are all well aware, an increasingly dangerous job on behalf of the entire community. They deserve our full and unqualified support. However, their job is made a great deal harder by widely-publicised episodes such as that which took place in Holloway. A deplorable incident of that kind does immense damage to the many decent, honourable men and women who make up the metropolitan police.

Secondly, that climate of collaboration requires responsible conduct by public authorities in London. I do not propose to rehearse again this afternoon the evidence that we all know exists of the disgraceful campaign that has been waged against the police by the so-called police monitoring groups that have been established in many parts of London (all at public expense of course), by the production of that nasty anti-police video by Mr. Paul Boateng and his colleagues, and by the campaign in more than 20 schools in inner London that has led to the police being barred from speaking to children in schools on such vital issues as crime prevention and even road safety. All responsible people will deplore that campaign to harass the police.

There is surely one supreme national interest: to foster a sensible, rational and trusting relationship between police and public; and to ensure that at a time when there is increasing fear of crime in our streets, the police are given adequate resources to do their difficult and dangerous job. I beg to move for Papers.

3.16 p.m.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this theme this afternoon and for giving the House so much information, which it is important to have and which we must consider. The noble Lord and I have worked at different times on different themes associated with the police. This afternoon, I do not want to go over the same ground but I shall try as far as I can to refer to other sides of what is such a vital question.

Most of us have probably not given as much attention to this subject as we might have done. We ought all to be grateful today that we have had this Motion on the Order Paper. It is very widely drawn but I shall devote most of my few minutes to the subject of crime prevention, which partners the figures about crime that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

The noble Lord and I have worked together not just in London and not just in the country. He has worked mainly in London. As far as this country is concerned, I have worked mainly with the police in other parts of Britain. For very strange reasons into which I will not go now, I have had probably more experience of the police abroad than I have in this country. Indeed, your Lordships may think it very strange that I wore German uniform for an appreciable length of time, including in the capital city of Berlin, where I encountered many of the same problems to which the noble Lord referred in respect of London.

One of the important features about crime prevention is that there is no clear measure of its success. That is something we can never really be sure about. Figures are reported to us about crime and policing, and as far as they go they are all right. However, we never have accurate figures about crime prevention, and success in that area can never be reported. It is difficult to judge any measure of success because, as I say, we do not have any figures to make a comparison with, perhaps, a previous period. Nonetheless, the more time that is given to considering the problems now before us, the more success we shall have in understanding those problems and in taking the correct action to solve them.

Inward thinking is a difficulty that we have to fight against. Until comparatively recently our police, who have so many good points, were inclined to fall back on inward thinking. What we really must do now is to improve the relationship between the police and the people. That is particularly difficult to do in a big city, especially a capital city, and it is even more difficult in a city such as London that contains a whole number of important ethnic minorities as well. But a lot has been happening for the better.

This afternoon we have had reference to the establishment of the metropolitan police and to the recent increases in men and money, but when will the next slice come? A week or two ago there was mention of £52 million extra and now again there has been an increase in the establishment. When we look back over the past years we see that whenever we run into trouble it is always suggested that we need more men and greater powers. We now have more men and more powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, yet we may need still further powers and further men. We have to look ahead and think about the future and not just accept the figures that we have now been given.

I prefer to talk about the theme of Neighbourhood Watch. In this great city of ours and in large parts of the country we have made a start with Neighbourhood Watch but we still have a long way to go. There is training for selected people; and we must appreciate that the claims on regular manpower for training are expensive. In fact, if we try to raise the whole standard of our Neighbourhood Watch schemes and train people for them, then we are taking a certain number of men from the limited numbers available and occupying their time on other duties.

However, we must bear in mind that members of the Neighbourhood Watch are not police. No matter how hard they work they are not police. They must not use violence or carry weapons, but they are very valuable in helping identification and surveillance—that is, the eyes and ears of the police. "Surveillance" is a curious expression to use though it is in common use among the police. Nevertheless, a large part of their time must be spent looking out for things and watching for those things which professionals may see even if nobody else notices. The activities of Neighbourhood Watch schemes must be kept within limits. One does not wish the keenest of members to spend so much time that they become bored. They could be just as successful as many regular policemen if they were given the chance, but then we have to be on guard against any professional jealousy. It is not peculiar to the police but occurs throughout the whole professional world where professionals and amateurs come into contact. Certain problems can arise and it must be admitted that this situation is to be found in the police as elsewhere.

Two days ago I received from the International Police Association a copy of their magazine through the post. Other noble Lords also may receive it. In it there is an extremely good article written by an English Chief Inspector of West Midlands Police who has just been in the United States and visiting Detroit, which is the sixth largest city in America. There they have easily the most advanced and successful Neighbourhood Watch scheme in operation. He says: It is stressed to volunteers that they are not Police Officers and they have no legal authority except that as an ordinary citizen. Observation and reporting are the two main objectives. Whilst on patrol they should leave their vehicle and they must not carry a weapon of any description". He had said earlier: [The Chief Officer] was adamant that whilst he found Neighbourhood Watch programmes the finest way his Police have to combat crime, there had been a much larger success. The active involvement of citizens in Crime Prevention has had the effect of improving Police performance in serving the community". We should pay rather more attention to that sort of thing. I do not think that we pay sufficient attention to what is being done in other great cities, particularly in countries in the western world where we should all learn from one another.

I spoke about our minds, which were half-closed until recently. We must keep open minds. We now have our minds open, I hope. We need the right sort of leadership when we have volunteers undertaking various jobs with the police. We must instil good leadership and enthusiasm if we are to see this problem which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, through successfully. We must take into consideration figures from those who have been trying to work with the police, and will be doing so over the next few years. We shall find that necessary support on a big scale must come from the civil population. We must work very hard at this—police and people together.

3.26 p.m.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, first on his excellent speech and secondly for getting the Motion on the Order Paper. I had a Motion on crime prevention and the involvement of the community, which rested calmly for a year and nothing happened. Of course, we have constantly debated the plight of prisoners, about whom we are always very worried. We debate the plight of the prisons and why they are falling apart. We raise questions about these problems; but we do not pay enough attention to the questions of law and order, and certainly not to the question of crime prevention.

I say to some of my own noble colleagues who are absent at the moment that my daughter-in-law has recently been canvassing on behalf of the Labour Party in the borough of Fulham where a by-election will soon take place, and the prime question on everybody's lips is whether we can prevent crime. People are much more concerned about that than anything else. So if any politician really wants to consider the feeling of the people outside this House they must pay attention to this concern.

It is always boring to say, "I have said this before". It is supposed to be a sign of old age and ex-Prime Ministers. However, I should like to say that I have said all this before, over and over again. It is very depressing when it takes a terrible incident to bring this situation to the attention of the media. Only this week there was another example of one of the many violent acts that I have referred to before—violence against people at work. Twenty years ago the only worker who might have feared violence in his daily life was the police officer, and that did not happen every day. Now, we have violence against bus conductors, train drivers, social workers and teachers; and there is news of something which I have referred to before, which is violence in hospitals. It seems incredible that those who aim to do good are now subjected to violence and left defenceless—as they are—against such people.

A number of hospital doctors have written about this. I shall mention only one from Denmark Hill, who says in a letter which has been printed in The Times that the events that were recorded by the doctor who had previously spoken about this matter were typical of every day. What a scandal it is that the staff of our great hospitals in this great city are subjected to violence! On many occasions nurses, medical staff and students have all suffered personal assault. How disgraceful also is theft from our hospitals, which ranges from the loss of television sets to toys taken from children's wards.

What kind of society are we living in? The correspondent says that last year the financial implications of criminal acts were brought home sharply to them by the savage knife attack, which I think we all recall, on one of their local policemen, Police Constable George Hammond. He says that a conservative estimate of the cost to the health authority of the treatment of that brave patient was £100,000. That is what happens. One per cent. of the population puts 99 per cent. of the population in danger and discomfort, and then the 99 per cent. have to pay for the damage as well. While the money is being spent on the damage caused by such savage attacks it cannot be spent on other things in the health service.

Let us consider the Underground. Last year there were 1,500 assaults on staff, which is a 10 per cent. rise on the year before. There were 1,200 assaults on the buses, which is an 8 per cent. rise. Then there are the schools. We often talk about the teachers and their long holidays, but do we talk enough about their position, assaulted by parents and by children and surrounded by the most incredible vandalism? I recommend your Lordships to see some of the London schools, with their broken windows and smashed desks. Such acts are perpetrated by people in totally mindless violence.

Then we come to the shops. As many noble Lords will know, I am concerned in a crime prevention exercise on behalf of the retailers. I am proud that they have elected to take such action and to spend their money. They could easily have let the situation ride and done nothing about it. I commend such action to industry. It is difficult to know which cases to mention and which to leave out in a short speech. We have the situation of the small shopkeepers who are often Asians. One such shopkeeper was robbed four times in a fortnight by gangs of youths. The manager of a supermarket in the borough next to me three weeks ago was shot by three youths who have never been captured. The young manager of a West End shoe shop was killed by a customer in an argument over size. In an off-licence in the City Road the manager was knifed for a paltry £30. I could go on. Yesterday your Lordships rightly spent time discussing concern for shop assistants working on Sunday. I ask your Lordships also to exercise concern about the violence perpetrated against those people who are only trying to do their job.

Part of the solution is deterrence. The criminal must know, first, that he will be caught and then that he will be dealt with severely when he comes to court. When I was involved in publicity about the light sentences handed out many people wrote agreeing with what I said. Anyone who uses violence or intimidation must receive a custodial sentence if for no other reason than to protect the innocent who are being attacked. I congratulate the Government on putting crime prevention at the top of the agenda. I was at the seminar chaired by the Prime Minister and I am a member of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention. I hope that we shall underline what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. This is not a party matter. To prevent crime we must involve the whole community. Society gets the law and order that it deserves.

If we are to prevent crime in London we must bring in the community. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. Let us have more of these excellent neighbourhood and business watches. The London boroughs that do not wish to initiate them must be made to do so. A young friend in a certain south London borough told me last week that a few of them were so disgusted that the borough would not set up a crime prevention panel that they called a meeting. On a bitterly cold night in a bitterly cold hall 100 people turned up, such was the feeling of the citizens about the need for a panel.

We must have a larger police force. People must see the police doing the job of preventing crime. I feel irritated when I see every morning two able young policemen outside my office watching cars to see whether people have paid for a road licence. That is important, but it is not as important as the possibility of people being attacked, robbed and violently treated in other ways in back streets. We must spend more money on that exercise. Every borough must have an active crime prevention panel. We must have much more publicity about crime prevention; and for that I appeal to the media. It is much better to prevent an incident than to indulge in even the most important inquiries that we often have after a terrible event. For years I campaigned for a crossing on a certain main road. One child was killed and then we got our crossing. Let us prevent crime before the terrible things happen to our great city that we have seen in other parts of the world.