| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Crimes (Convictions)
10. Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of crimes which ended in a conviction in (a) 1993 and (b) 1995. [6157]
Mr. Maclean: About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher. Many of those convicted will have been responsible for other crimes.
Mr. Pope: According to the British crime survey, the number of offences went up by 400,000 and the number
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1196
of convictions went down by 13,000. Does it not take a special kind of incompetence to reduce convictions at a time of soaring crime?
Mr. Maclean: No, but it takes a certain kind of hypocrisy for a party to complain about those things and then vote against all the measures that we have put forward to deal with them.
Sir Patrick Cormack: How many of the crimes involved the use of legally owned handguns?
Mr. Maclean: Offhand, I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure, but I shall happily do so and, if necessary, lay the answer before the House. I speculate that the figure is very small indeed.
Mr. Michael: Can we now have some honesty on crime figures from the Minister? Last month, the Home Secretary said that 6 per cent. of crimes ended up in punishment by a court. That would be bad enough; but, since then, the Government have had to admit to the House that only 2 per cent. of crimes ended in a conviction in 1993, and suddenly it is too expensive to work out the figures for last year. Will the Minister now accept the truth? The Government's British crime survey shows that crime is up, although fewer crimes are reported. The right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary replies show that convictions are down. No longer does one in 50 crimes end in punishment; now--as confirmed to me by the House of Commons Library analysis today--only one in 54 crimes ends in punishment by a court. Will the Minister face up to his responsibility for that harsh reality?
Mr. Maclean: More bluster to hide the voting record. The conviction rate depends on two crucial things. The first is the rules of law under which the courts have to operate; every time we have tried to change the balance more in favour of the victim, such as by removing the right to silence, the Opposition vote against it.
The conviction rate also depends on the police catching criminals. When the Labour party left office, we were 8,500 officers under strength. We have had to recruit those 8,500 officers and 7,000 more. I can tell the House that we now have 2,000 more constables than we did at the time of the general election. We are recruiting more police officers, because that is one of the best ways to improve our conviction rate in future.
Mr. Day:
Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the siren voices of Opposition Members and the judiciary who, between them, have let down the people of this country by ensuring that criminals who commit major crimes that threaten people's everyday lives do not spend sufficient time in prison and are not, in the public's eyes, punished? Although rehabilitation is important, the public know that rapists cannot rape, muggers cannot mug and robbers cannot rob when they are in gaol.
Mr. Maclean:
My hon. Friend is right. Siren voices can be rather attractive, but the Opposition's voices are not siren but rather shifty. They are shifty, because they are saying one thing now but do another when they go through the Lobbies. The Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1988,
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1197
Football Matches (Policing)
11. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the adequacy of the policing of football matches. [6158]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Policing of football matches is an operational matter for chief officers, but I am satisfied that it is done professionally and efficiently--the whole world saw the evidence of that during Euro 96.
Mr. Banks: I hope that, this evening, the Minister will have a chance to watch the drama on Carlton Television about the Hillsborough disaster, because many football supporters are angry about what they see as the failure of policing at Hillsborough and the lies and cover-ups that followed. The Minister should be prepared to talk with the football clubs and the police to allow the clubs to have more of an input into the policing decisions in grounds. The police rely far too often on historical background for policing levels rather than on new technology, the new seating and the new arrangements in clubs. Will not the Minister allow the clubs to have greater involvement, because sometimes policing charges for football clubs are more than the gate receipts?
Mr. Kirkhope: It is for the football clubs to discuss with the chief officers in their areas the nature and extent of policing both inside and outside the grounds. I am satisfied that there have been considerable developments since the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Great progress has been made, and one has only to go to an excellent match--as I did on Sunday, when an excellent team beat the hon. Member's team 2-0--to see that the standards in grounds are now enormously high.
Electronic Tagging
12. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of electronic tagging. [6159]
Mr. Sackville: More than 230 offenders have now been sentenced and tagged under curfew orders. The trials show that the curfews are increasingly valued by the courts as a flexible and effective punishment.
Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. As the shambles opposite have got the number 22 on their minds, will my hon. Friend tell me whether on no fewer than 22 occasions they voted against every piece of legislation that we tried to introduce to put criminals inside, where they belong? Can he tell me whether tagging works in Barbados or on safari, because that is where that lot send the pint-sized Rambos to get their corrective training? Does tagging work in Barbados? That is what I want to know.
Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend can be assured that electronic tagging is a tough punishment, and goes down
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1198
extremely badly with criminals, which is why the courts are imposing it for the upper end of the offences for which it is intended. I suspect that we shall hear many voices among the Opposition moaning that it is bad luck on the criminal.PRIME MINISTER
EU Unemployment
Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [6178]
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.
On my Friend's main point, we have made a firm commitment to hold a referendum if the next Conservative Government recommend that Britain should join a single European currency in the next Parliament. I confirm to my hon. Friend that, if such a referendum were held, it would of course be held before sterling was linked in any way with any putative European currency. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we do not intend to rejoin the so-called ERM mark 2, and would not wish to institute any policy of shadowing the euro.
Engagements
Q2. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6179]
The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1199
determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.
The Prime Minister: Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were--[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements--that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government's policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.
Mr. Blair: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals
- "to simplify policy and procedures",
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.
The first issue involves proposals to simplify complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second is the way in which we have always dealt with independent medical advice concerning pensions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shout. After some months, we have just accepted independent advice on emphysema, having been pressed to do so by the Opposition. We did so willingly. That is what we always do with independent
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1200
Mr. Blair:
Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?
The second part involves the other changes that the Prime Minister mentioned. He says that they are merely a simplification. Are they on the basis of medical advice? Is that why widows' rent allowances are to be abolished for new cases? The Prime Minister shakes his head. Is that happening or not? Not issuing reminders to return claim forms--is that happening or not? Ceasing to issue copies of decisions to third parties--is that happening or not? Is the instruction "Do not direct appellant to Royal British Legion as their representative" correct or not? Instead of patronising comments about how we do not understand, will the Prime Minister deal, first, with the matter of medical advice and his Social Security Ministers and, secondly, with each of the points that I have made?
The Prime Minister:
As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual--despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago--he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.
I repeat: the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, and I hope that he will not pursue it. We are trying to simply the procedures, as that is the right thing to do in the interests of the taxpayer, as well as of the applicants and the recipients of benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to simplify procedures across government, no wonder he envisages expenditure rising under a Labour Government.
Mr. Blair:
If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why--[Hon. Members: "Question"]. This is a question--"why" is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government's head?
The Prime Minister
indicated dissent.
Mr. Blair:
The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of "sweeteners"? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1201
The Prime Minister:
As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.
Mr. Charles Wardle:
My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission's new proposals on borders--as Conservative Members know he will--the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend's own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?
The Prime Minister:
We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain's borders and, hence, our immigration controls.
Q3. Mr. McAvoy:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6180]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. McAvoy:
Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister's failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister's failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister's face?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.
Mr. Dover:
Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises--call them what you will--only give rise to higher taxation--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1202
The Prime Minister:
It is certainly--[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.
It is certainly the case that, in order to contain public expenditure and hold down taxation, many extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. We have taken those decisions and I acknowledge the difficulty of doing so.
Madam Speaker:
Order. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think that the whole country understands the unlikelihood of any alternative Government taking such decisions.
Q4. Mr. Skinner:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6181]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Skinner:
Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.
Then I met a bloke on the street with his head down. I said, "Are you looking for these economic jewels too?" He said, "No, I'm looking for work." In my opinion, the Government sold off the economic jewels along with all the silver that they sold off the other years.
The Prime Minister:
I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |