| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I am afraid that I was about to come on to some failures. We had a pledge in 2005 to increase the number of community support officers to up to 24,000—a pledge that has been reduced to 16,000, with a direct impact in London of a reduction from 6,400 to 5,600 such officers. Serious concerns were raised by Sir Norman Bettison of the Association of Chief Police Officers when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee a couple of days ago. He spoke about a funding gap, particularly for tackling serious and organised crime.
Members have referred to another significant problem—that of gun and knife crime. I take the Minister’s point and I am not going to say that it is all down to police numbers, but clearly the problem is increasing and it is particularly significant for young people, whether as perpetrators or victims. It may not all be due to police numbers, but it is a problem that needs to be resolved, whether by the Government, local authorities, communities or, indeed, individuals.
Harry Cohen: I would like to raise with the hon. Gentleman the issue that I raised with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley): the matter of the Mayor’s London youth offer of £79 million. I praise the Mayor for that, as it was greatly needed. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said that the Conservatives would not cap it, but does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is a real risk of their redistributing it away from the deprived areas where there is youth gun and knife crime into the more leafy suburbs where it would not have the same effect?
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid, however, that it is not really appropriate for me to respond to a point about what a future Conservative Mayor—if, indeed, there ever is one—intends to do with funding. The hon. Gentleman has, however, reminded me that the Home Office needs to address one particular aspect of tackling gun and knife crime—the research carried out into the effectiveness of different projects. The range of projects currently run from perhaps a single ex-offender who has taken it on his or herself to organise something at a very local level through to much larger funded projects. On the basis of a conversation with a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I know that not much research has been done into which of those projects really deliver and which deliver value for money. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to say a little about what research the Home Office is either carrying out now without my knowledge, or intends to carry out to assess which projects deliver the best value in tackling this very serious problem.
Mr. Love: This is, indeed, an incredibly serious problem. I want sincerely to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there are any shortcomings in what the authorities are doing—I mean the Metropolitan police or the Government through their violent crime action plan or various other initiatives, including those talked about by the Mayor and others—to take young people off the streets and give them an alternative to the gang culture. Are there any other things that we should be doing to try to address what is an extremely serious problem for London?
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention. I have just highlighted one thing that we should be doing—looking at the different projects and assessing which are the most effective in tackling the problem. Another proposal that I would put to the hon. Gentleman is the idea of giving one of the officers in the safer neighbourhood teams specific training in youth issues in order to provide the link with young people. If it were needed to deal with disadvantaged youths or others outside the system, an officer would then have the necessary training to make contact and perhaps forge a more positive relationship with them. Those are two proposals that I would put to the hon. Gentleman.
Angela Watkinson: In my constituency and, I am sure, those of most other London Members, there is a range of activities in which young people can involve themselves, such as clubs run by the council, young people’s uniformed organisations such as the scouts and guides, art, sport, music and drama. The problem is not a lack of facilities, but the fact that a hard core of young people do not want to participate.
Tom Brake: I agree. Provision varies from one local authority to another, but many provide a variety of options for young people, for instance through youth centres or uniformed organisations. As the hon. Lady says, there is a group who will not take advantage of such services, but we might be able to find ways of providing diversionary activities in which they do want to participate. If that means giving them authorisation to do parkour running around an estate, perhaps we should facilitate the process. We need to ensure that the range of options offered to young people allows them all to access activities that interest them.
Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Tom Brake: I will give way once more; then I think I should make some progress.
Simon Hughes: I wanted to respond to the last three interventions. I know that the Government are considering whether, rather than change the membership of a safer neighbourhood team, they should enable someone who has the skills to target characters who need work to carry out detached youth operations in each ward. That person would focus particularly on young people between 15 and 21 who are not employed, studying, training or in an apprenticeship, because they are the ones who give the grief: they can afford to be out all night causing trouble because they have nothing to do in the daytime.
Tom Brake: I agree. That echoes what was said by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about the hard-core group who are not in the system and do not want to be, but with whom it might be possible to engage if they were offered appropriate activities. Perhaps the Minister will be able to update us on what is happening to dormant accounts. I assumed that they would start to provide a level of funding that is not in the system at present, and might create opportunities for engagement with that group of people.
I have described some Government successes and some areas of concern and failures. Regrettably, there are also some areas of spin. I am afraid that the only
reason why we shall not be able to support the Government amendment is a phrase to which other Members have referred, suggesting that the House
“welcomes the aim of the Mayor of London to add 1,000 more”
police officers. We cannot support that proposition, because we know that it is not the Mayor who will be doing that. It is the boroughs and the Home Office. We need some honesty about who will provide funds. The Mayor will not be providing those 1,000 extra officers, and I think that credit should be given where it is due.
Justine Greening: Might not another piece of honesty have appeared in the amendment—the admission that band D taxpayers in London who were paying around £55 a year in precept to fund the Met in 1996 and 1997 paid £224 in 2007-08? My part of town, Wandsworth, has fewer warranted officers patrolling the streets than it had a decade ago, and we do not think that we have been given value for money.
Tom Brake: I recall that the hon. Lady made the same point during a topical debate a few weeks ago. There is clearly an issue over the gearing of the precept—how much it contributes in real terms, and how much is contributed by the Home Office. But we need a visible police presence on the streets, and the hon. Lady is right to argue on behalf of her constituents that there should be more visible deterrence.
Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): While we are at it, could we have a third piece of honesty? Should not the Conservative party admit that it opposed funding increases? Conservative councils—and probably Liberal Democrat councils as well—consistently take credit for the falls in crime for which they opposed funding, and continue to claim that tax rises are unnecessary when they are exactly what paid for those extra police officers.
Tom Brake: I seem to be playing piggy-in-the-middle, trying to act as a third party and defend a policy that is not ours. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to intervene on a Conservative Member and make a similar point.
We do require honesty in the debate and in how the figures are produced. My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made the valid point that we need to agree which statistics are firm and fair, and reflect the changes that have been made to how crimes are counted, so that the debate is not about the statistics but about how officers are deployed or whether they are doing too much administration. That would be better than a rather sterile debate about the statistics.
I hope that Members on both sides of the House would agree that the British crime survey figures provide us with a consistent level of reporting for crime and may therefore be much more accurate than other figures. They are not dependent on a change to the way in which the offences are calculated. Regrettably, it is clear from those figures that London as a region is doing very badly compared with other regions, whether on violent crime, vehicle crime or burglary. There is an issue as to how London compares with other parts of the country, even if the background is that crime is falling. London still has more than its fair share.
On 1 May, Londoners will choose whom they want to put in charge of the police, to cut crime and to tackle antisocial behaviour in our capital city. They could choose the hon. Member for Henley, who in his first six years in Parliament expressed no interest in London. We looked at all the parliamentary questions that he had tabled and not one of them—
Tom Brake: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman tabled one question about London in six years, but Londoners will not be taken in by that. He seems to have more experience of flouting the law than of imposing it. If anyone wants to challenge me on that point, I refer back to the leaflet that I mentioned earlier, which shows the hon. Gentleman riding his bike while making a mobile phone call.
Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman has been coruscating about the mayoral pitch by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say how he would advise Liberal Democrats to use their second preference vote.
Tom Brake: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I shall not express a second preference.
Then we have the Labour Mayor, who four years ago promised to cut crime by 50 per cent., but who, at the last count, had delivered only an 18.5 per cent. reduction in crime. Or we have the ex-policeman Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, who has 30 years of experience in tackling crime, from the Brixton riots to cracking down on hard drugs dealers. Even Conservative and Labour Members will realise that the choice is a no-brainer. Brian Paddick has the serious solutions for London and that is who people will vote for on 1 May.
5.48 pm
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Crime has fallen in each of the past five years. It has fallen by an average of 5.5 per cent. in the past three years, despite what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said in his opening remarks. Those are the irrefutable facts about policing in London.
We can bandy figures around, but a trawl around the websites of Conservative local authorities in London makes interesting reading. They are not consistent with anything that we have heard from the Opposition today. Barnet council says that it has seen a 17.5 per cent. reduction in crime between 2005 and 2008. Croydon council boasts that the borough has experienced a 5.2 per cent. decrease in recorded violent crime. Enfield council states that offences have
“fallen by nearly 10 per cent. between 2003-04 and 2006-07”.
We are grateful to Councillor Greg Smith of Hammersmith and Fulham council, who welcomed the safer neighbourhoods teams rolled out by Ken Livingstone. He said:
“More Bobbies in Fulham Broadway and Shepherds Bush Green are resulting in more arrests and less crime, with no evidence of any displacement to neighbouring wards. We have seen some staggering results, for example, in Shepherds Bush, robbery is down by a colossal 46 per cent and in Fulham Broadway, total crime is down by 10 per cent, with burglary down 27 per cent.”—
Justine Greening: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Clive Efford: I am coming to you, don’t you worry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I counsel the hon. Gentleman to use the correct parliamentary language.
Clive Efford: I am coming to the hon. Lady.
Harrow council carried out a crime survey and found that 71 per cent. of residents surveyed felt safe. The council said that
“residents’ fear of crime, and perceptions of anti social behaviour, have shown significant improvement year on year for the last three years.”
Havering council—the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) might want to use this when he sums up—states:
“Although Havering is an extremely safe place to live, the fear of crime is higher than the probability of being a victim of such a crime.
We are committed to tackling fear of crime through educating the public about the facts and ensuring they are not overtly frightened by stories that might appear in the newspapers and on television or the radio.”
I say to the hon. Member for Hornchurch that we could add “in Hansard”, could we not?
Hillingdon says on its website— [ Interruption. ] I am quoting your colleagues in support of my argument.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to keep intervening on the hon. Gentleman, but he must use the correct parliamentary language.
Clive Efford: Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am using the colleagues of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) to highlight the fact that they do not agree with the arguments being put by Conservative Benchers.
Hillingdon council boasts that
“crime figures are at a 5-year low. Personal robbery is at its lowest for 3 years, vehicle crime is at its lowest for 5 years and assaults are at their lowest for 5 years.”
Justine Greening: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to intervene to set the record straight. Can you give me some guidance on whether it is appropriate to read quote from, for example, Hammersmith and Fulham council but to omit to mention that the council has funded additional police officers and could have been talking about that fact?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter— [ Interruption. ]
Justine Greening: I am asking for guidance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will get my guidance. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a matter for debate.
Clive Efford: Kensington and Chelsea council says that burglaries have been “slashed”, and that
“Kensington and Chelsea residents are less likely to be a victim of burglary today than at any other time this century.”
I come to Redbridge council—is anyone from Redbridge? The council welcomes the reduction in street crime by a
third and attributes that to the safer transport teams, which are part-funded by the Mayor of London.
“Despite recorded crime falling in the UK and burglary at its lowest for decades in London, research shows that a third of people believe crime has risen ‘a lot’.
By helping to make people feel safer in their community, Safer Neighbourhoods Teams will provide reassurance to help bridge this gap.”
Clearly, Wandsworth council regrets the fact that Conservative members of the Greater London authority consistently voted against the Mayor’s budgets that introduced the safer neighbourhoods teams.
Justine Greening: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has finally allowed me to intervene, given that he has been talking about my constituency. I was trying to make the point that the crime survey that I carried out, to which more than 3,000 people responded, showed that people felt less safe in their area. The hon. Gentleman has failed to mention that my council and I, as the local MP, have campaigned tirelessly to get back the lost police officers—we have had fewer police officers over the past decade. The hon. Gentleman is selectively taking points from what the councils are saying and giving an erroneous picture to suit his own ends.
Clive Efford: I am slightly confused, as I used the words of the Conservative-run Wandsworth council—“despite recorded crime falling”. What is erroneous about that? Is the hon. Lady saying that the information on the council’s website is erroneous? Does Wandsworth council want to mislead people about crime falling in the area? Is it wrong for it to claim that the incidence of burglary is at its lowest for decades?
The council states that research shows that a third of people believe that crime has risen, and that is consistent with the point made by the hon. Member for Putney, but it also says that the safer neighbourhoods teams will provide reassurance. Where is the consistency in the Opposition approach to these matters?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend began his contribution by referring to Barnet council, but I think that the figures that he gave are out of date. That is not surprising, as the up-to-date figures show that crime in Barnet has fallen by 24 per cent.
Clive Efford: There we are: crime in London is falling even as we speak.
We need to put the figures in context, and to do that we have to recall that there once was a Conservative Government. That is not easy to do, but we must not forget the lessons that we learned at the time. Under the Conservatives, police numbers in London peaked at 28,455, but then, on 1 September 1994, the Government implemented the Sheehy report, and police pay was cut.
When I was first a Member of Parliament, two police officers who worked in Camden borough visited me in my surgery. One was earning £4,600 a year less than the other because he had been employed after the Sheehy report was implemented. What impact did Sheehy have? By March 1995—six months after it was adopted—police numbers in London had fallen by 1,800.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |