19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 230 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alan Johnson
That is certainly an issue, particularly in the light of the HMIC-Audit Commission’s joint report. We must take a rigorous approach to its conclusion that, if the Government cut more than 12%, front-line policing will be affected. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Audit Commission has been done away with; I hope that HMIC will not come next.
As police numbers reduce, so will their powers. I shall deal with DNA and CCTV in a moment.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to other matters, may I tell him that I have been listening carefully to the points that he has made about cuts? He knows full well that his Government had pledged to make 20% cuts in public sector spending. If they were not going to occur in the Home Office, where were they going to be?
Alan Johnson
When we were in government, we decided to pick the priority Departments, and the chosen areas were health, education, international development and crime and policing. It is extraordinary that the present Government—[Interruption.] Hang on! I am answering the question. It is incredible that the present Government believe that international development, health and, to a certain extent, education must be prioritised, and that they are more important than crime and policing. Quite frankly, I can say as a former Health Secretary that we did not commit to increase the health budget above the rate of inflation. That budget was £110 billion. I went from the Department of Health, which had a £110 billion budget, to the Home Office, which had a budget of about £10 billion. We would have saved £73 billion; we would not have gone for a saving of £113 billion, which Boris Johnson described only yesterday as cutting too savagely and too deeply. It is a central feature of this argument that the Government are going too far with the cuts and that they are failing to treat crime and policing as a priority in the comprehensive spending review, even though it is a priority for constituents everywhere.
During the summer, the Home Secretary made a speech saying that we needed to “move beyond the ASBO”. I want to make two things clear. First, the antisocial behaviour order is the most serious of a range of civil powers introduced in 1998 so that the police, local authorities and other agencies could tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way. They needed to tackle the kind of behaviour that falls short of criminality but nevertheless destroys people’s lives. These powers are not driven from Whitehall, as the Home Secretary suggested, but through community safety partnerships that involve community groups and social enterprises.
The second thing that we need to be clear about is that, where those powers are used effectively, they work. I shall lapse into what I hope is uncharacteristic immodesty for a moment when I say that they worked particularly well during my year as Home Secretary, when an additional emphasis was placed on the victim and on intensified activity in localities where public perception of antisocial behaviour was above average.
The social affairs correspondent of The Guardian said recently that these measures had had no discernible effect, but they had a discernible effect in the one place where an effect can be discerned—namely, the British crime survey. The Home Office, under the current Home Secretary, stated on 15 July that, whereas previous reductions had been in one or two specific areas,
“the reduction between 08-09 and 09-10”—
the glorious year of Johnson—
“reflects falls in the proportion of people perceiving a problem with almost all types of anti-social behaviour that make up the overall measure”.
That refers to reductions in abandoned cars, noisy neighbours, drunkenness, drug use, youth nuisance, litter, vandalism and graffiti. Those are all issues for which there were insufficient powers prior to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The statistical release went on to say that antisocial behaviour was now at its lowest level since records began, with, for the first time, a majority of the population agreeing that the police and councils were dealing with antisocial behaviour in their local area.
Alan Johnson
No, not again, if my hon. Friend does not mind; I have already given way once to him.
On DNA, the Home Secretary says with the smug piety that can have come only from working closely with the Liberal Democrats that our proposed way forward on the DNA database was disgraceful, because, she says with eyes blazing, it meant that the DNA of innocent people would be retained. That is what the right hon. Lady says and I see her nodding her head; it is a viewpoint that she uses against us. The fact is, however, that she proposes to do exactly the same. The difference is that we would keep the DNA profiles of those innocent of both serious and non-serious offences while she would keep the former but not the latter. Furthermore, we would both take the DNA from all those arrested and keep it for a sufficient period to check against previous crime scenes. The logic of the lofty argument that she has got from the Lib Dems—[Interruption.] I will come on to the issue of six years in a few moments. The logic of the argument that innocent people’s DNA is being kept is that we should not take DNA from anyone until they are convicted. Let me explain how nutty that proposition is; it is so nutty that it is not even a Lib Dem conference policy—always a good gauge of whether something is extraordinarily daft.
There is no evidence whatever that those arrested but not convicted of a non-serious offence have any lower propensity to be re-arrested than those arrested but not convicted of serious offences. I repeat—no evidence whatever. If there is, we will no doubt hear it put forward from the Government Dispatch Box. Mark Dixie, the man who brutally raped and murdered Sally Anne Bowman in her front garden, was on the DNA database because he had been arrested but not convicted of a pub-fight—a non-serious offence. If that DNA link had not been made, a guilty man would have remained free to rape and murder again and an innocent man, Sally Anne’s boyfriend, who had dropped her off outside her home after a blazing row witnessed by passers-by, would probably be serving a life sentence. Steve Wright, the murderer of five prostitutes in Ipswich, was on the DNA database because he had been arrested for suspected theft. He would not have been on the database under the Scottish model, which this Government want to adopt.
Furthermore, while the Scottish model retains the DNA of those arrested but not charged for three years—I come to the issue raised by a sedentary comment from the Minister for Immigration—rather than for six years as we propose, it also allows the police to extend the period of retention for unlimited further two-year periods. The next time Members hear the Home Secretary accuse Labour of wanting to retain the DNA of innocent people for six years, they should remind themselves that she wants to adopt the Scottish model. She wants to adopt a system that allows the DNA of innocent people to be retained indefinitely; a system that has no evidential support; a system that, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, would cost an additional £158 million to administer because of all the bureaucracy involved in the two-year reviews; and—most important—a system that would have probably left 26 murderers and rapists unconvicted had it been in force last year.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
There is not a shred of evidence for that.
Alan Johnson
The Minister is in the Home Office now. He can seek the evidence. It comes from ACPO’s research, and it comes from Home Office statistics. That is why I used it when I was Home Secretary. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and I used it when we steered through legislation that was agreed to by the Minister’s colleagues. [Interruption.] During the wash-up period, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said, “No way will we agree to this”, but they agreed to it. They could have stopped it, but they did not. I hope that that is because they have begun to realise their sheer folly—and I assure them that they will discover what folly there is in the actions proposed by the Government.
As for CCTV, we still do not know what the coalition means by its reference to greater regulation, or why it considers that there is a problem. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that that reference definitely came from the Liberal Democrats, but we do not know what it means. Given the existence of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act, all of which apply to the authorities responsible for public-space CCTV surveillance, it is difficult to gauge the problem, but in the light of the portentous speeches of the Deputy Prime Minister, we must conclude that the Government want fewer CCTV cameras because the Liberal Democrats have consistently accused the last Government of introducing a “surveillance state”.
I support CCTV and reject the argument that it offends civil liberties. Indeed, it protects the civil liberties of our citizens—and, as we have seen recently, those of the occasional cat dropped in a wheelie bin. I agree with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, in 2007, wrote this—it is excellent—in his local newspaper:
“I had been shown a community centre on a council estate that had been burned down in an arson attack… If only there had been CCTV, the attack might have been prevented or the perpetrator caught…. to those who claim that this all heralds a Big Brother society, I say, why should innocent people worry that someone is watching out for their safety?”
The right hon. Gentleman spoke for Britain then. The vast majority of the population would support what he said, although sadly it is not the view of the pseudo-libertarian Government of whom he is now a member.
Alan Johnson
No, I will not give way again. It was tedious last time, and it would be tedious again. If the Government want to strike a blow against the surveillance state, they should sack Andy Coulson, not take away CCTV cameras.
We recently learned of another power that was due to be introduced, but is now held in suspended animation. This is a serious point. I refer to domestic violence protection orders, which received cross-party support earlier this year. They are designed to protect instantly women and children who are under threat. ACPO, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Women’s Aid and the Home Affairs Committee urged their introduction to close a major gap in public protection. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Committee.
There was no dispute whatsoever about the need for that measure, but although the Home Secretary has said that her
“ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls”,
she presides over a regime that is threatening the enormous progress that has been made in tackling domestic violence over the last 13 years. There has been a 64% reduction since 1997. I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General is present, because he, with rather more grace than the Home Secretary, has recognised the significant increases in successful prosecutions and the sharp fall in the number of discontinued cases, as well as the amazing reduction in domestic violence. However, as the Home Secretary will agree, there is much more to be done in this crucial area.
Thankfully, the Government were forced into a U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants—mainly, I have to say, owing to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who pursued the issue tirelessly. I think that it is time to execute the same manoeuvre, and to get on with introducing domestic violence protection orders as quickly as possible.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Domestic violence is an issue that should worry Members throughout the House, as, indeed, should all forms of violence against women. If the last Government were so concerned about it, however, can he tell me why it took them 12 years to produce a strategy to end it?
Alan Johnson
The answer is quite simple. The Home Secretary ought to do some research. From 1998 onwards we did not need a strategy, because we had introduced an action plan involving the changes that led to the reduction to which I referred. [Interruption.] The statistics that I quoted came from the Attorney-General and from the Home Office. If we had waited 12 years to introduce any measures to deal with this issue, we would not have reduced domestic violence by 64%.
As I said earlier, during the biggest global recession that we have experienced since the 1930s, crime fell by 9%. During the recession of the 1990s over which the Conservatives presided, it rose by 18%, and domestic violence doubled. That was the legacy of the broken Britain that we remember from those days. It is ridiculous of the Home Secretary to suggest that because we published a strategy to deal with domestic violence against women and young girls and then moved to the next stage, we did nothing for 12 years. We did nothing for 12 years except reduce domestic violence by 64%, and produce all the other statistics quoted so generously by the Attorney-General.
I have dealt with the reduced resources being inflicted on police forces with restricted powers. Let me now deal with the third part of the triple whammy: the imposition of elected commissioners to replace the hundreds of experienced councillors, magistrates and other citizens who sit on our police authorities. Here we see the “we know best” arrogance of the Government in all its depressing detail. The public did not vote for the abolition of police authorities at the general election, or for their replacement by an elected commissioner. This model is opposed by the police, by local councillors of all political persuasions, by ACPO, by the Association of Police Authorities, and by practically everyone who knows anything about policing.
The Local Government Association, under a Tory stewardship, says it does not believe that introducing directly elected individuals is the best way in which to strengthen police accountability. The association believes that such action
“will weaken the ability of the police, councils and other public services to cut crime.”
It could also “fragment local partnerships” and make a “place-based budgeting approach”—I am not sure what that is—“more difficult” to operate. Yet the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said:
“we are not going to consider other models, this is the model we are going to introduce, that is the coalition agreement.”
And so we have a rushed White Paper, “Policing in the 21st Century”. Incidentally, the Conservatives also produced one of these in 1993; it was called “A police service for the 21st century”, so the titles do not change much but the content certainly does. They published the more recent document on 26 July for an eight-week consultation period over the summer break. Helpfully, at the back of the document there is a code of practice on consultations, which includes the criterion:
“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.”
Irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum, the topic under discussion is a major issue about which there are deep reservations. To quote from the code of practice, it is “feasible and sensible” to have a longer consultation than 12 weeks; there is no argument whatever to curtail it.
The first objection to the proposal is its puzzling inconsistency in relation to the approach to elected mayors. While a referendum is necessary if a city or town might have an elected mayor, no such public consultation is proposed for the equally profound step of introducing a single commissioner to replace the collective and diverse wisdom of police authorities—and this, again, from a Government who preach localism.
There is, of course, an attraction in direct accountability; indeed, when we were in government we looked at the issue not once, but twice. However, the difference between us and the dogmatic zealots who now occupy the Treasury Bench—I excuse the Attorney-General from that—is that we consulted properly. Our 2004 consultation found overwhelming opposition to direct elections. Respondents pointed out the dangers of extremist groups succeeding on low turnouts, single-issue groups dominating, a move to a more short-term approach with re-election dependent on quick wins rather than long-term objectives, the politicisation of accountable bodies and the lack of public appetite for elections and the cost of running them. However, the case for directly electing the 17 members of the police authority—which is what we consulted on and which was Liberal Democrat policy at the last general election—is much stronger than that for the replacement of police authorities by a single elected commissioner. This is the most ill-considered and pernicious aspect of the proposal.
Sir Ronnie Flanagan looked at this issue in his 2008 review. He expressed the great fear about a single person with a political mandate exerting pressure that too readily conflicts with operational judgment. He pointed out that it may also be an impediment to collaboration—which, rightly, is a major part of the Government’s White Paper—since the vote for the post will be on localised issues rather than the largely unseen issues of cross-border collaboration.
Flanagan made a number of points from a policing perspective, but an even stronger argument concerns the loss of a body of people who are geographically diverse as well as diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender and background. The Government propose a new body—a police and crime panel—to oversee the commissioner. That is meant to provide the checks and balances. The body will, however, have no say on policing and no veto over the commissioner’s decisions. Therefore, we face the prospect of having an elected commissioner who, as the White Paper makes clear, will have a team of personal appointees, and a police and crime panel to overview the commissioner but not the police, whose overview will be conducted by a single commissioner whose decisions are final. Somewhere in all of this will be elected councillors—and in some places elected mayors. Chief constables will have to find their way around this maze, with all the additional costs involved, while trying to cope with the biggest financial upheaval the police service has ever faced.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes the appalling fiscal deficit left by the last Government and reiterates the urgent need to restore the nation to economic health; recognises that the police will need to play their part in reducing that deficit; and welcomes the Government’s proposed policing reforms, which will deliver a more responsive and efficient police service, less encumbered by bureaucracy, more accountable to the public and, most importantly, better equipped to fight crime.”
The text of the Opposition motion and the 50-minute speech that we have just heard from the shadow Home Secretary provide yet more proof, if any were needed, of the utter state of denial of the Labour party. From listening to the shadow Home Secretary and reading the motion, one would wonder how on earth Labour lost the election; it had such a perfect record on everything. Let me just remind the House of its record. Labour doubled our national debt and left us with the biggest deficit in the G20. As much as Labour Members might now like to pretend otherwise, if they had won the election, they would have had no choice but to take action to reduce the deficit. We know that they were already planning 20% cuts—they just did not have the guts to tell us where those would come from. This afternoon, however, we were told by the shadow Home Secretary that they were going to come from health, defence and local government—[Interruption.] Labour Members say that he did not say that, but I asked him where the cuts were coming from and he said, “Well, they weren’t going to come from policing and education” and that he would have taken—
Alan Johnson
The right hon. Lady really does need to follow the debate and to read the documents. Some £75 million was to come from police overtime, £400 million from procurement and £500 million from process. This was all set out in the pre-Budget report, the Budget and last November’s policing White Paper—£1.3 billion-worth of savings. The Government can keep parroting that we have never set all this out, but the trouble is that we have and it is available to look at.
Mrs May
I say to the shadow Home Secretary that the intervention that he has just made was not the answer given to the question that I put to him earlier about the cuts and on which I was just commenting. The Labour party went into the election promising 20% cuts. He claims that those would not have come from the Home Office budget. I asked him where they would have come from and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has made clear from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that they would have come from health—that is what the shadow Home Secretary was saying.
If the shadow Home Secretary will not listen to me—he does not appear to wish to listen to me on the issue of cuts—perhaps he will listen to the following:
“When ... Alan Johnson”—
flails at—
“the coalition for protecting NHS spending against cuts being inflicted elsewhere in Whitehall, Labour looks as if it is indulging in opposition for opposition’s sake. Comfortable it may be. But it will not bring Labour back to power.”
Those are not my words, but those of the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Alan Milburn. So let us hear no more nonsense from those on the Labour Benches about police budgets and police numbers.
Labour’s denial is not just about police funding; it is also about its record on crime and policing. I had hoped that the shadow Home Secretary would use the freedom of being in opposition to get around the country and to be out there meeting people and finding out what they really think about what is happening. He might, thus, have learned about the booze-fuelled violence that takes place in too many of our town centres at night, and about the gang crime in our cities and the antisocial behaviour that makes so many people’s lives a misery. But judging by his speech today, and indeed by the motion, he has not bothered to find out what people actually think—
Mrs May
Wait a moment. That is a shame, because there are occasions when the shadow Home Secretary stops playing party politics and is a bit more candid about his record and about our policies. On licensing, for example, he has said:
“I regret not doing more to tackle the problems caused by binge drinking during my period in office. The Government”—
this coalition Government—
“is right to stop alcohol being sold below cost price. It’s something we should have done.”
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary listens selectively to one or two of the things that we say; I have just made the point that sometimes he is willing to put aside party politics and to make statements of that sort. Sadly, we did not hear any of those statements in the speech that he has just given. Instead, we heard the familiar rewritten history of the past 13 years. Let us examine some of the claims that Labour makes about that period. It hired a record number of police officers, but it bound them so tightly in red tape that they are available on the streets for only 11% of their time.
Alan Johnson
I shall say two things on this. Those on the Government Benches are deriding Michael Howard so, first, I should say that it was the White Paper called “A police service for the 21st century”, produced under Lord Howard, that introduced all of the target regime and suggested that the Home Office should be able to appoint the chairs of political authorities. Some of that was the right thing to do. I know that he is derided by those on the Government Benches, but Michael Howard was actually a very successful Home Secretary.
My second point deals with the HMIC’s figure on availability. HMIC talks about the percentage of the police who are available at any one time to be on the streets. The police work in shifts, and some police officers are sick, some have to be in court, some deal with counter-terrorism and some deal with child pornography, so that statistic is meaningless. Many police officers have been quick to point that out. There is no way in which under the previous Government that availability rate would have been any higher.
Mrs May
I say to the shadow Home Secretary that I am deeply disappointed in what he is saying. I will tell him who that statistic means something to—it means something to my constituents, and to those of other hon. Members, when they do not see police on the streets. They know the reality, but sadly the shadow Home Secretary is not willing to accept it. The reality is that because of things that his Government did we have seen that police officers have been tied up in bureaucracy and red tape, kept in police stations filling in forms when they could have been out on the streets, where people want to see them and where they want to be.
This is not just about the bureaucracy faced by police officers; the previous Labour Government passed a record number of laws, but left office with nearly 900,000 violent crimes taking place a year. They spent a record amount on criminal justice, but they left office with 26,000 victims of crime every single day. Labour Members might think that that is a record to be proud of, but we do not and neither do the British people.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Lady tell us how many of those victims would support her suggestion to get rid of antisocial behaviour orders or would support the reduction in the number of CCTV cameras? Has she ever come across a constituent who wants to see fewer CCTV cameras?
Mrs May
Once again, the trouble with the Labour party is that it is making up things about what our policy is, purely in order to meet the arguments that Labour Members want to bring into this House. On CCTV, we have said that we want better regulation of it and automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—and it is right and proper for us to introduce that. If the Labour party thought that there was nothing to be done about CCTV, why did it start looking at introducing somebody to examine the regulation of CCTV? The regulation of CCTV is important and I suggest to the hon. Lady that she does not go around trying to suggest that the Government are going to get rid of CCTV cameras as a result of our policy to regulate those cameras better.
The hon. Lady has given me a welcome opening here, because I wanted to go on to discuss not only the record of the previous Labour Government, but what we are going to do— that is despite the fact that this is an Opposition day debate. I want to talk about how we as the new coalition Government will deliver effective policing that cuts crime in an era of falling budgets, because we on this side of the House are determined not only to tackle the legacy of debt we have been left with by the last Government, but to make sure we deliver high-quality public services even as we reduce public spending. If we are to succeed, the policing reforms I announced to the House before the summer recess, which were so derided by the shadow Home Secretary, will be vital.
Despite spending more on criminal justice than any comparable country, we remain a high-crime country—the chance of being a victim of crime here is higher than almost anywhere else in Europe—[Interruption.] Those on the Labour Front Bench are making lots of comments from a sedentary position, but that is again part of the denial. The idea that this country is somehow a wonderful world where people do not experience crime or antisocial behaviour because of the impact of the last Government is completely false. We remain a high-crime country and we need to do something about it. The complacency on the Opposition Benches about this issue is, frankly, breathtaking.
Alan Johnson
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the figure, which is in the White Paper, comes from the international crime victims survey, which was last carried out in 2004 and surveys 2,000 people—in comparison with the British crime survey, which surveys 45,000 people—and sometimes takes its statistics from those convicted, a very important point that was raised in an earlier intervention, and sometimes has nothing to do with the level of crimes? It is not a basis for saying that we have the highest crime rates in Europe. Will she confirm that?
Mrs May
What I will confirm is that yet again, in this debate, we have seen from those who made up the Labour Government an unwillingness to accept what people out there see and feel on their streets. It is about issues of crime and levels of crime in this country that are not acceptable. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the figures, I think that figures such as those that I quoted earlier—26,000 victims of crime a day and nearly 900,000 violent crimes a year—are not figures to be proud of. They are figures that we need to deal with. We need to do more and that means unfettering the police and allowing them to get out on the streets and to do what they should be doing, which is dealing with crime.
Hazel Blears
The right hon. Lady is right that there is always more to do in tackling crime. The Labour party has never been complacent about how important these issues are to the British public. However, does she not accept that there is now the lowest risk for more than 20 years in this country of becoming a victim of crime? Of course we are not perfectly safe but we are an awful lot safer than we used to be under previous Governments.
Mrs May
I am disappointed in the line that the right hon. Lady has taken. She made an important and valid point earlier in her intervention on her right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about antisocial behaviour and the important fact that all too often the perception of antisocial behaviour is worse in deprived communities and those communities that are among the poorest and most vulnerable in our country. My point is very simple: none of us can be complacent about levels of crime in this country. We need to find the ways in which we can reduce crime and in which we can help the police to do their job.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Northamptonshire people have little to thank the previous Government for. They reviewed formula funding in a way that benefitted the county and then failed to implement it. They admitted that the population figures used were incorrect but failed to act on them and they cheated Northamptonshire police out of millions of pounds a year. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend meet a delegation from Northamptonshire and, I hope, talk about reviewing formula funding?
Mrs May
Either I or the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice would be very happy to meet delegations of colleagues, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the Lincolnshire Members of Parliament have already got in before him to discuss their bid on formula funding. However, as I have said, I am happy to meet such a delegation, as is the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Let me turn to the point about the accountability of the police and the policing reforms that we will put forward in the police reform and social responsibility Bill. Our changes to the accountability of the police will be crucial in ensuring that they once more become crime fighters instead of form writers. Central to those reforms is the idea that we want to get rid of the inefficient and ineffective processes of bureaucratic accountability, where power rests with Whitehall civil servants, and replace it with direct democratic accountability, with power placed back in the hands of the people. Not only will that make the police truly responsive to the needs of the public, but it will mean a more efficient and innovative police service, free from the meddling of central Government. We can be as aggressive as we like in cutting police paperwork—and we are—but we will never achieve the culture change we need until we deal with the driver of the problem and that is Whitehall.
As I noted earlier, according to the recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that is cited in the motion, only 11% of police officers are visible and available to the public at any one time. It is not as if the Opposition were not warned about that when they were in power. The shadow Home Secretary has quoted Sir Ronnie Flanagan, but he said in his review that the difference in paperwork now compared with when he was a front-line officer was “truly staggering”. Jan Berry, the last president of the Police Federation, said:
“As a result of Government diktats, the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall”.
The last Government did not listen, but we will. Already we have cancelled the top-down public confidence target and scrapped the policing pledge. We are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search and we are scrapping the stop form in its entirety. We will return charging decisions to officers for minor offences and we will reform the health and safety rules that stop police officers intervening to protect the public.
That is just the start. Shifting the model of accountability from the centre to local communities removes the need for pages and pages of bureaucracy and it removes the temptation to Home Secretaries to issue initiative after initiative.
Keith Vaz
Of course, we welcome the steps taken by the Home Secretary to reduce bureaucracy, but the previous Government were also committed to reducing bureaucracy. That goes back, as the Home Secretary has said, to the Flanagan report. Will she commit herself to ensuring that Jan Berry, when she delivers her final report, can continue the good work that she is doing in monitoring the level of bureaucracy and advising the Government from outside the Home Office about the need to continue along this path?
Mrs May
We obviously look forward to the results of the further work that Jan Berry has been doing in this area. The right hon. Gentleman started his intervention by commenting that the last Government intended to reduce bureaucracy, but the problem was that they did not. We have come in and within a matter of months we have shown specific examples of where we can reduce that bureaucracy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On that point, my recollection is—I think that the shadow Home Secretary said this in his contribution—that the previous Government did make some progress on bureaucracy. My concern, particularly on stop and search and stop and account, is that we have a long history in this country of recognising that they can have particular effects on particular communities. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be sensitive, particularly in relation to my constituency, to the fact that we have a long past during which this issue has been at the absolute apex of concern about crime. I do not want to see the sort of problems that we had in the 1980s again. When she says that bureaucracy is being reduced as regards stop and account, will she say whether there will still be accountability for stopping ethnic minorities, in particular?
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He makes particular reference to his constituency, and there will be others who will share his concern. That is why, as I said, we are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search. We fully recognise that we need to do that in a sensitive way that notes and deals with the issue that he has raised.
In addition to dealing with bureaucracy, we will introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners—single, named individuals who will be democratically accountable to their communities. That accountability will be real and will be provided not by invisible police authorities—surveys show that only 7% of people know that there is a police authority they can go to if they have a problem with the police—and not by Ministers hundreds of miles away in London, but by people themselves. The police commissioner will be somebody whom people have heard of, whom they have voted for, whom they can hold to account and whom they can get rid of if they do not cut crime. So we will leave local crime fighting to local crime fighters, but we will not forget cross-border, national and international crime. It is an irony that for years the Home Office has tried to micro-manage local policing from the centre while it has neglected policing at the national level. That is why we will establish a national crime agency with a proper command structure to fight serious organised crime and to control our borders.
I understand that it was only yesterday that the Opposition added antisocial behaviour to their motion. The shadow Home Secretary spent quite a bit of time on it in his speech, but he forgot to mention his own quote about the last Government’s record on antisocial behaviour, when he said:
“We became a bit complacent…we…dragged our feet by not making it a priority.”
He claimed that the police have the powers they need to deal with antisocial behaviour and that there is a range of 15 options that they can use, but the fact that there are so many options is precisely the problem. We have individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour injunctions, antisocial behaviour orders and criminal antisocial behaviour orders. There is a whole list of options that increases the bureaucracy and complexity and means that in many areas, the police, councils and local people find it very difficult to decide what is appropriate, and that all too often things are not applied.
The shadow Home Secretary should also know that three quarters of incidents of antisocial behaviour are not reported and that more than half of ASBOs are breached. Again, that is not a record of which to be proud or on which to be complacent. That is why we need to look at the whole toolkit that is available to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour. No number of sanctions is a match for local policing that is responsive to local needs. That is what this Government’s police reform agenda will deliver—simpler, smarter sanctions that are faster to obtain, easier to enforce and that provide a strong deterrent and a real punishment.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
One of the main problems encountered by those dealing with ASBOs has been the inordinate length of time it can take for applications to succeed, only for people then to find that the problem that they were dealing with has gone away or has transmogrified into something else. Secondly, CRASBOs, or criminal ASBOs—I am sorry about using that acronym, or euphemism; it does not matter—are totally ineffective. They are afterthoughts that are bolted on to convictions and their enforcement has been nothing short of lamentable.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about the panoply of ASBO powers that are available. The important point is that the bureaucracy involved in getting an ASBO means that, all too often, nothing is done, because it takes so long to get something enforced. That is why so many communities up and down the country find that the orders are not working and why they continue to suffer from antisocial behaviour.
Geraint Davies
It is very generous of the right hon. Lady to see me. I could not sit any closer; I have been doing my best. Will she say how her Government expect to reduce the number of short-term prison sentences—now a clear and amplified ambition—at the same time as getting rid of ASBOs and the current means of reducing those short-term measures without a massive escalation of crime and antisocial behaviour in the community?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman should not try to second-guess what may or may not be in the sentencing review that will come from the Ministry of Justice. There is a commitment to reviewing sentencing and I suggest that he should wait until that comes out, when he will be able to make his comments.
One area that I want to speak briefly about, which has not been touched on much today, is the unmitigated disaster of Labour’s Licensing Act 2003. One in three people who turn up in accident and emergency have alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related crime and disorder costs the taxpayer up to £13 billion every year. When that legislation was introduced, we were promised a café-style culture, but five years on the police are still fighting an ongoing battle against booze-fuelled crime and disorder. So we will overhaul Labour’s Licensing Act to ensure that local people have greater control over pubs, clubs and other licensed premises. We will allow local authorities to charge more for late-night licences, which they will then be able to plough back into late-night policing in their areas. We will double the fine for under-age sales and we will allow authorities permanently to shut down any shop or bar that persistently sells alcohol to children. We will also ban the below-cost sale of alcohol to ensure that retailers can no longer sell it at irresponsible prices. As I have said, I welcome the support for that which we will have from the Opposition.
In today’s motion and in the shadow Home Secretary’s speech, he and the Opposition have fallen into the trap of thinking that they need to oppose everything the Government do just for the sake of it. They are denying the legacy of debt that they have left to this Government and they oppose the Budget cuts that they had planned to make. In denying their record, they oppose the police reforms that they once proposed, so let me try to shake the shadow Home Secretary out of his state of denial. Police officers are available on the streets for just 11% of their time and there are 900,000 violent crimes a year and 26,000 victims of crime every single day. That is the legacy of the Labour party and it will be up to the coalition Government to put things right.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, but if I have time, I shall certainly give way.
We must also consider the situation surrounding antisocial behaviour orders. We pioneered ASBOs in Manchester and have a remarkable record on that. Inspector Damian O’Reilly has just received the Greater Manchester police’s community police officer of the year award and will be entered in the national finals in November. He has given me information about how ASBOs have dealt with gangs in my constituency. That has been praised by a judge. When certain people who had been detected and rounded up by the police were found guilty by that judge, he said:
“It’s time to give Ryder Brow”—
which is in my constituency—
“back to the residents”.
Inspector O’Reilly—he is someone who is doing this work—says that he has found ASBOs
“to be really effective in breaking up the dynamics of problematic groups”.
He goes on to state:
“Were ASBOs to be abolished it would be devastating for both the community and the officers who put so much effort into obtaining them, the problems would reoccur and the only winners would be the criminals.”
The Home Secretary states—although it is impossible to say how she knows this—that only a proportion of antisocial behaviour is reported. She seems to suggest that that is an indictment of ASBOs, but only a minute proportion of rapes are ever reported by rape victims—a tiny number of women report rapes—so does that mean that we should not have legislation to deal with rapists? The right hon. Lady puts forward an utterly absurd argument.
No Government have ever had a perfect record on law and order, but the Labour Government improved things and made it possible for the police at the sharp end to improve the situation in my constituency. Time will tell what will happen as a result of the Government’s proposals and the objectives that the Home Secretary set out today. If she is right, we will have to acknowledge that, but if she is wrong, the Government will be to blame and they will have to carry the can. What they are doing is likely to make the criminal more rampant while the householder who is burgled and the person who is knocked down on the street become more vulnerable.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
But neither the right hon. Lady nor I can provide statistics for next year or the year after, and we will judge her on them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
We have had an interesting debate, and the level of interest in crime and policing provision has been demonstrated by the fact that 22 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken. That is a significant number of people who have expressed an interest in the concerns before us.
I would like to start be reiterating the Opposition’s central charge against the Government’s proposals to date. The record of the previous Labour Government was one of achievement and one of which Labour Members can be proud. It drove forward changes that I am proud of today and introduced cultural changes to the police service, but it will be put at risk by the Government’s actions in the next few weeks and months. In particular, that record will be put at risk—this is the major charge in the motion—by the proposals to cut the resources of the police service. That proposal, which was actually encouraged by the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—they did not fight the Treasury—will mean that we will face potential major reductions of 20 to 25% in the police service budget. That will create major difficulties in the future—[Interruption.] The Minister says, “How do you know that?” I know it because it was stated in the pre-Budget report and indicated to police forces across England and Wales. I hope that that does not happen, but I expect it to do so.
I am talking not just about funding issues, but about the policy choices that the Home Secretary and the Minister are making over CCTV, DNA, domestic violence protection orders, control orders, the direct election of police officials and penal policy. That will all put us on a collision course—it has the potential to drive crime up and to lose us the record that we have had to date. I am proud of what the Labour Government did. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) all praised the work of the previous Government.
We should remind ourselves of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said. The crime survey has shown that crime has fallen 43% since 1997, confidence in policing is up, violent crime fell by 42% in those 13 years, overall personal crime fell 41%, household crime fell 44%, vehicle crime fell, convictions rose, there are more people in prison and we have longer sentences. As a result of that, crime is down by 43% overall, as I said. I am not saying it was perfect, because it was not. If an individual is subject to a crime, to them it is 100% crime. [Interruption.] I am being heckled about reoffending rates, but those actually fell by 20% under the Labour Government. The number of new entrants into the criminal system also fell under the Labour Government, because we made the required investment in many areas.
Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we have record numbers of police officers—143,734 police officers and 16,000 police community support offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned that they value the fact that PCSOs provide that service on the streets, giving reassurance. Those officers were not there, in any shape or form before the previous Labour Government came to power. There are also 17,000 more police officers now than in 1997. That investment has made the difference in reducing crime. I simply put that on the record, because although what we did was not perfect, it shows that we made a difference for people in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom by reducing crime.
We did that not just because we put resources into policing and police community support officers, but because we also did what Tony Blair said we would do, which was try to tackle the causes of crime, as well as crime itself. The past three years have seen the youth crime action plan, putting money into prevention work across the country and supporting after-school activities, weekend initiatives and a range of measures to help tackle crime and the causes of crime; putting money into antisocial behaviour initiatives, with the thresholds that we set until March this year to try to encourage local councils to have minimum standards; and looking at issues such as family intervention projects and Sure Start. Indeed, the word “gobsmacked” came to mind when I heard a Conservative Member say how much they welcomed and enjoyed Sure Start. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—in a sedentary intervention, albeit a prescient one—said, “Aren’t the Conservative Government pledged to abolish Sure Start?” We will see in due course.
Tackling the causes of crime and putting resources into policing and police community support officers made a difference. Crime fell under the previous Labour Government. However, that is not to say that we would not have made savings had we been re-elected on 6 May. Indeed, let me point to the White Paper that I produced as Policing Minister in December last year, supported by my right hon. Friend the now shadow Home Secretary, to show that not only were we trying to take forward policing initiatives; we also recognised that we could, should and would have saved money by doing things more efficiently.
Those efficiencies included reducing the overtime bill by £70 million—the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made points about that—and developing national procurement standards for police officers’ uniforms, beat cars and air support, thereby saving resources in what our 43 forces do; standardising procurement of body armour; cutting stop-and-search paperwork; piloting the transfer of Crown prosecution powers to the police for lesser offences; and looking at encouraging voluntary mergers, with a £500 million fund that I put in place as Policing Minister for that purpose. Government Members raised the question of exposing and developing good practice. The Quest programme, which we supported, did just that; indeed, it extended it, including in Weaver Vale, Cheshire, Runcorn and Warrington. In total, savings of more than £1.3 billion by 2014 were identified by the then Labour Government.
Those savings would have been seen through by the Labour Government, but the choice that the Conservative Government are making is to go beyond that. They are doing what my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned, which is cutting public spending because they believe in cutting spending, not because they need to tackle the deficit now. That is the choice that the Conservative Government have made. Every right hon. and hon. Member on the Labour Benches went into the election with a commitment to maintain health, education, and policing and crime expenditure. We were elected on that basis—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary indicates that that is not correct, but that was in our manifesto, upon which we were elected. I confess that it did not reach the hearts of all parts of the country, but it secured us the mandate to argue today for that expenditure for the future.
What have we seen from the coalition Government? In July, we saw cuts of £125 million to a budget for this year that they agreed in February and which we proposed when we were on the Government Benches as Ministers. We are now seeing cuts of potentially 25 to 40% in the number of police officers, which, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East and for Salford and Eccles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, will damage the ability of police officers on the streets. I happen to contend that, funnily enough, investment in police officers and community support officers has meant that crime has fallen accordingly. The chief constables of Humberside, Gwent, Kent and Cambridgeshire have all predicted deep cuts that will have a profound impact on the crime-fighting abilities of their forces.
As if that were not enough, we find that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is starting to dismantle some of the policies that have made a real difference on the ground in our communities, including tackling antisocial behaviour through the use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am extremely surprised by that. I grew up in the 1980s, and I believed that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. That is what they told us, every week and every month. That is what they told us all the time. Now, antisocial behaviour orders have been shown to make a real difference on the ground in stopping antisocial behaviour, with 65% of recipients stopping offending when the ASBO is put in place, and 95% stopping after their third order has been issued. However, the Conservative coalition is going to dismantle that system.
The policing pledge, which sets minimum standards of service for the communities that we represent, is also going to be thrown out of the window by the Conservative coalition. The ability to use DNA to bring criminals to justice is also to be thrown out of the window, despite the fact that, in the debate on the Crime and Justice Bill before the election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported proposals under which people who had not been convicted of a crime—but who could potentially have been criminals—would have had their DNA stored. I look forward to a day that could be disastrous for the Government, if people are committing crimes when they could have been prevented from doing so. People could be killed, injured, raped or attacked, but individuals—[Interruption.] I say to the Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), that there are balances to be struck in this regard. An individual might have been caught by the police but not charged. His DNA might have been collected. In 90% of cases, according to our current research, such a person could potentially commit a crime in the future. I look forward to being able to say that we could have prevented some of those crimes from being committed.
The domestic violence protection orders, which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats did not oppose in the Bill in February, are now to be ditched by the Home Secretary.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving me this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we have not ditched domestic violence protection orders. We have deferred their introduction to ensure that, if we take the decision to carry on with them, they will be the most effective way of dealing with the issues that we all agree need to be dealt with. They have not been ditched.
Mr Hanson
We must look forward to the fact that two pilot schemes are being held back when they could have been developed.
On the issue of CCTV, there is certainly a need for regulation, but individual Government Back Benchers have said—[Interruption.] Well, when we were in government, we were considering proposals for regulation. The fact is, however, that the present Government believe in reducing the number of CCTV cameras and in ensuring that they are not deployed to the extent that we believe they should be. Hon. Members have given their views on that as well.
At the same time, a massive reorganisation of the police service is now pending, which will result in police forces taking their eye off the ball when it comes to fighting crime. The introduction of directly elected commissioners will cost £50 million. Nothing has yet been said about their roles and responsibilities, about who will set the precept, about qualifications or about staffing. The Government are developing a whole range of issues that will ensure that the police focus on reorganisation and not on their core business of fighting crime in the community at large.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned control orders, the fight against terrorism and the Prevent budget. These are serious issues, but the Government are setting the needs of what they view as civil liberties against the need to protect the community at large. Again, I look forward to examining those issues in detail, so that we can hold the Government to account on terrorism, international crime, drug running and regional crime.
The Labour party would have maintained the resources for fighting crime and developing policing. We would have increased the efficiency of the police service and allowed the police to look outwards to the public they serve. We would have strengthened the police authorities and ensured that crime continued to fall, as it did during the 13 years of the Labour Government. I look forward to taking on the Government on these issues. We will expose their softness on crime while ourselves adopting the position of the party of law and order. We shall expose their failings over the weeks, months and years ahead.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
Let us start with what is agreed on both sides of the House. We agree about the importance of tackling crime. Hon. Members of all parties have spoken about the importance of dealing with crime in their constituencies and of making their communities safe. We also agree about the importance of the police in tackling crime and the need to support them. We should all join in thanking the police for the work they do.
Beyond that, however, agreement ended, and we heard two kinds of speeches, reflecting the divide in today’s politics—the divide between this coalition Government and the Opposition who are stuck in the past. It is a divide between the realists and the reformers on this side and the deficit deniers and big spenders on the other side. Government Members understand the importance of, and the responsibility to deal with, the deficit. We understand the importance of organisations, whether they be in the private or the public sector, spending their resources wisely.
We heard good speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), reminding us that it is not just the number of police officers, but what they do, that matters. How available are they to the public? We should all be sobered by the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, issued just a few weeks ago, telling us that only 11% of the police—about a tenth—are visibly available to the public at any one time. We should ask ourselves the question why. Why is there not greater efficiency in our police service; can the money be spent more wisely? The report also said that higher spending forces are not necessarily better than other forces and it proposed savings by greater use of civilian staff—some forces are doing that; others are not. As the Chairman of the Select Committee recommended, we need better procurement; we also need more effective collaboration and more back-office savings.
Hazel Blears
The HMIC figure of 11% of officers being available on patrol has been much discussed today. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s target over the next 12 months? What does he think he can deliver when it comes to having more officers on patrol?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady has not understood the new world, has she? We want to move beyond targets. We do not believe that public services are improved by the targets of which she was so fond.
That issue was reflected in the second group of speeches, which called for more spending. Never mind that we spend £14 billion a year on the police—50% more over the lifetime of the last Government. These speeches—not least the right hon. Lady’s—called for more authoritarianism. Never mind about civil liberties: to hell with those, and who cares about the deficit? That was the substance of the shadow Home Secretary’s case.
Nick Herbert
No, I will not.
The shadow Home Secretary said that we should not cut, that we should not make any savings in respect of the police and that we should protect the police, but take no action to protect civil liberties or reform police accountability. That was his contention. Let us deal with those matters in turn.
In his winding-up speech, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said that the Opposition would have maintained resources for policing, while the Opposition motion says that the previous Government would have maintained core funding. Yet, on 20 July, on “The Daily Politics” in a debate with me, the shadow Home Secretary said that his Government would have cut by “£1 billion a year”—a cut of 12%. There was the admission that they would have cut spending. Now, however, they say that they would have maintained resources. They do not know what they would have done, but we know what they would have done.
Nick Herbert
No.
Just a few weeks ago, we know that Labour Members voted against a reduction in police spending, which this Government had to make in order to deal with the deficit. That reduction was by 1.5%, but Labour Members voted against it.
Nick Herbert
No.
How, then, can we take seriously the shadow Home Secretary’s contention that he would have cut by £1 billion? The truth is, as we know, that the Government who left office bequeathed to the country £44 billion-worth of unspecified spending cuts. Those were cuts that they were going to make. They would not say how, but we know that they were in the order of 20%.
Alan Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. It will give him a chance to get his breath back.
I have said this consistently, and I will say it again very slowly. We set out in the November White Paper, the pre-Budget report, the Budget and other public documents savings of £1.3 billion over the next four years. That is about 12% of the Home Office budget. The HMIC report, to which the Minister referred, said that with a lot of effort it was possible to save 12% without affecting front-line services. That is the argument.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman says that he would have protected police spending. So which budget would he have cut more deeply? Would it have been health? Would it have been defence? Of course Labour Members will not tell us, but we do know that HMIC has said that £1 billion a year—12% of the budget— could have been saved through better and wiser spending. We will not know the availability of resources until the outcome of the spending review on 20 October, but we are determined to protect front-line services.
When he was Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman would not guarantee police numbers. Perhaps that is not surprising, because we know that police numbers across the country were starting to fall on his watch. He knew that he could not guarantee the funding, and he knew what was around the corner.
The second part of the shadow Home Secretary’s contention was that we should make no attempt to protect civil liberties. His entire attack was based on what we planned to do in relation to the restoration of those liberties. The Labour party’s position is straightforward: the DNA that is taken from innocent people should be retained. The shadow Home Secretary based that on the argument that crimes would be solved, so why should he stop there? If the end justifies the means, why not take DNA from everyone? If the Labour party is suggesting that all people are potential criminals, they should believe that that would deal with crime. In fact, the end does not justify the means. Labour, the party that proposed 90 days’ detention without trial, still does not understand that if we undermine liberty and erode public confidence in law enforcement—if we take away freedom—we do not make people safer at all.
The third part of the right hon. Gentleman’s contention was that we should not accept the need for reform of policing. The Government believe that we must replace the bureaucratic accountability and top-down targets of which the last Government were so fond with democratic accountability, rebuild the bridge between the police and the public and reduce Home Office interference, so that we can give local people a real say over policing in their areas.
Labour Members raised various spectres. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of the risk of politicians being in charge of police forces. Who else should be in charge of police forces, other than elected people? Police forces must answer to someone, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it might be right and proper for them to answer to democratically elected people. The shadow Home Secretary raised the spectre of extremism. That is a constant cry from the Labour party. The British national party won just 2% of the vote in the last election, but it suits Labour’s argument to suggest that extremists will be elected. We on this side of the House say, “Let us trust the people when it comes to who will be elected to these positions.” The people will decide who should represent them and hold the police to account.
We are determined that local authorities will still have a role on police and crime panels, and are determined to press ahead with this reform. The shadow Home Secretary said that the reform simply was not necessary. Why? Why, in 2003, did the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), propose directly elected police authorities?
“For many people”,
the Labour Government said then,
“the question of who is responsible for what in terms of keeping communities safe is simply unclear. We must rectify this. Strong, transparent accountability is vital for community confidence.”
In 2008 the Labour Government made the same proposal for introducing a form of direct elections into the governance of policing. The then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said:
“We are…committed to introducing a stronger link between those responsible for delivering policing and the public they serve. We will legislate to reform police authorities, making them more democratic and more effective in responding to the needs of the local community.”
Do Opposition Members think these arguments have changed? If they were right in 2003 and 2008, why are they not right now? Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) simultaneously said we should reject further restructuring—his motion says that—and proposed a third reform. He suggested just a few hours ago at the Dispatch Box that we should have directly elected police authority chairs. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, “Three strikes and you’re out. You’ve reneged on your promise to reform police authorities twice; why should we believe your latest back-of-the-envelope proposal to do it again?”
We, however, are determined to drive forward with our programme of reform, and it is reform that does not end at the greater accountability of local police forces. It includes measures to deal with serious and organised crime, the creation of a national crime agency, and placing police forces under strong duties to collaborate so they can cut costs and tackle crimes that cross force borders. It also includes a serious programme to tackle bureaucracy and to give the public more information through crime mapping and information about crime that is really happening in their streets—not statistics, which, frankly, the public no longer believe. It includes, too, proposals to reform the pay and conditions of police officers, and we start from the position, as we do across the public services, that we trust the professionals. That is why we want to return charging decisions to police officers, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).
The reforms move beyond policing, too. There are reforms of the licensing laws to deal with the problem of 24-hour drinking and reforms to the toolkit of antisocial behaviour measures to ensure the police and local authorities have the ability to deal with that problem.
We do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s rose-tinted view of the years of the last Government. We do not accept what he described as the “glorious year of Johnson”. Where did that glorious year end up? It ended up with 10,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour every day, 100 serious knife crimes every day, 26,000 victims of crime every day and 1 million victims of violent crime a year. That is not a glorious record. Five million to 10 million crimes a year is not a glorious record; that is not a record about which the Labour party should be remotely complacent, yet Labour Members rise from the Opposition Benches and suggest nothing more needs to be done to deal with crime other than the ineffective remedies they proposed before.
What did the Labour Government spend their time doing? They spent it wasting money by amalgamating forces, creating bureaucracy with reams of guidance, introducing a policing pledge and spending £6 million a year on doing so, and, of course, creating new laws: 50 Acts of Parliament and 3,000 new offences, and not just offences that would help deal with crime. After all, did these offences make people safer? No, they did not. With their new laws, the Labour Government introduced 24-hour drinking and the so-called café culture, and they downgraded cannabis. They also released 80,000 offenders early under their end-of-custody licence scheme, which, of course, they scrapped just before the election was called. Above all, they spent and wasted industrial sums. They are in double denial: they created the deficit and they are failing to deal with it. We say that we cannot go on like this, spending more than three times the entire budget of the criminal justice system—that of the police, courts and probation service—on debt interest every year. We are determined to deal with the deficit and it is our responsibility to do so. That is the difference between the two sides—we are driving radical reform and they are stuck in the past.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.