| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.4 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): I am sure that hon. Members will wish Madam Speaker well on the 25th anniversary of her election to the House. It should be a glorious day for her, as the sun is shining.
I want to speak about something radical and different--the reorganisation of police forces. Crime knows no barriers, and there is a great opportunity to consider restructuring. Police officers do a tremendous job in impossible conditions: resources are badly stretched, police officers are thinly deployed--they are the thin blue line--and there appears to be an impossible conflict between targeting major crimes and providing essential community presence and service locally.
The solution to that conflict of interest lies in reorganisation of the structure of our police force. I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider reforming the police structure to make it similar to that used by many other nations, especially on the continent, where there is two-tier policing. We would benefit from regional policing and local policing by a district police force.
Regional development agencies are being discussed, so there is no better time to consider reorganisation of the police force structure. There could be a north-west police force instead of the existing five forces, five chief constables and several assistant chief constables, which is a costly way to administer the area. In addition, we could provide community policing at local level with the introduction of local forces. Instead of separate county forces, pooled resources in one region would achieve a greater police force, with more officers being employed in the fight against crime.
Police forces no longer reflect crime areas. Using the motorway network, criminals can be in different counties in minutes. The north-west is best placed with motorways and has a good network of roads. Logistics ensure that people can be here, there and everywhere in a short time, but also that crime moves throughout the region. The north-west is not unique, however. In the south-east, for example, the M25 gives mobility to criminals.
The police force structure should be reorganised to reflect the new regional nature of crime patterns. That should involve rationalisation of the county constabularies, which were established when car ownership was low and crime was locally based. We should consider a single chief constable for each region. What person would be better for such a post than the chief constable of Lancashire, who is doing a wonderful job? We must consider the great specialism within the force and achieve even greater professionalism.
Chorley is between Greater Manchester and Merseyside. A gang from a neighbouring force area could commit a series of burglaries in Chorley and be back home in half an hour--and back in an area covered by a different police force, which makes it difficult to track such criminals. The region has shrunk with the advent of mass car ownership, so I want a force that is more co-ordinated and can share operations and intelligence much more closely.
We should consider air support. The Cheshire force has an aeroplane, and the Merseyside, Lancashire and Greater Manchester forces have helicopters, but I believe that the Cumbria force has neither. What could be better than them combining and developing their resources in a north-west region? Instead of competing with each other, they could position that air supremacy to be better deployed to deal with crime.
Sharing expensive resources would allow costs to be redirected into other operations. Police horses, which are an important part of policing, put a presence on the streets, but each force has its own horses. Instead of each force in each region having separate mounted divisions that are not used daily, would it not be better strategically to position mounted sections and move them to wherever they are required? I shall forward those ideas not only to the Home Office, but to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales and the Police Federation, the people on the ground with expertise.
I think that all hon. Members would agree that community policing is important. Although I wish to maintain a highly motivated, highly efficient police force, that should not detract from the presence on the ground and in the community. Sir Paul Condon has stated that there is no longer a place for the bobby on the beat. That is not acceptable, and I do not believe that anyone supports that. Highly visible policing makes people feel secure, comfortable and able to relax in the community in which they live.
Perhaps, as a complement to the more specialised regional force, district police forces might be set up to concentrate on lower-level crime in the local community. For example, if a car radio is stolen, it is expensive for a constable to come round and, more often than not, people are given a crime number over the phone. A new generation of district police forces could deal with minor crimes such as a kiddie's bicycle being stolen, vandalism and petty theft. People feel that such crime should be covered and they would feel more secure because they would have a district policeman, not someone who has had specialised training and is a community policeman, who is with them for 18 months and is then moved when he is suddenly asked to train in another specialism or when the CID takes him for 12 months.
We do not have that community identity, that link with the bobby on the beat. We should re-establish that and this is a way. The Home Secretary talks about truancy and the police taking children back to school, but, to be realistic, that is impossible unless we can generate a new police force. There were many arguments when traffic wardens were introduced. People said that, by putting tickets on cars, they took away the rights of the police, but traffic wardens have proved to be successful. Without them, the roads would be clogged and we would not have been able to manage.
We have an opportunity to develop a district police force. It could give an enhanced role to the special constabulary, which performs an important, much-needed and valuable function, and which could be expanded to help police local communities.
It is farcical that highly paid, highly trained police inspectors in traffic divisions spend their time changing the film in Gatso speed cameras or setting up speed traps. Surely someone else should be doing that job.
Local police forces would have the time and resources to make our local areas safer. Local police officers would have a better opportunity to build a rapport with the local community, improving relations between the local bobby, residents and local businesses, and having a specific knowledge of local trouble spots and problems.
In addition, a reorganisation would provide the opportunity to establish a national force for the motorway network, coverage of which varies greatly from county to county. It is interesting is that, when I go up the M6, I go through Cheshire, and, within minutes, I am in Merseyside and, again within minutes, I reach Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Surely the policing of different counties covering small sections of the M6 is not viable and should be examined. Crime on motorways does not take place in just one county area.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
I should like to address the House on the subject of the nine volumes that have been compiled by English Heritage cataloguing 1,500 grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings that are deemed to be at risk. I must declare an interest as I am the owner of a grade 1 listed building. That building has been identified in the directory. I ask the House's indulgence because not only am I speaking from personal experience, but, having been "named and shamed", I can try to illuminate from personal experience what exactly is involved.
I think that we would all agree that naming and shaming is a dubious practice at the best of times and never more so than when practised by the Government or one of their agencies.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Or a diarist.
Mr. Clark:
I named, but did not shame. My right hon. Friend interrupts me with a flippant reference to my authorship, but I do not think that I have shamed anyone in my life, although often perhaps brought opprobrium on my own head, but that is another matter.
The House will remember with respect, if not affection, a former President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon Johnson. He ran into difficulties before he was President when fighting a primary. It was in a state that was distant from his home and where he was not well known, and he was fighting against a very worthy opponent, a church-going, greatly respected pillar of local society.
Johnson was not making much impact and polling day was approaching. He and his staff had to make a decision. They had a little council of war, of a kind familiar to us all when we are behind in the polls, as to what they should do. Johnson said that they should leak the news that their distinguished and church-going opponent had been guilty of vile and unnatural practices, which I will not identify on the Floor of the House. The entire council said, "We can't do that. No one would believe it and, anyway, it is not true." Johnson replied, "I just want to hear him deny it."
I revert to personal experience. The sub-editor of The Times writes in fairly large type:
I weary the House with that only because we do not know how many people that has happened to, and they do not have the immense privilege of being able to rise immediately on the Floor of the House to ventilate their view. However, a member of a Government agency is revealing what should be confidential--although, as it never happened, it is even more preposterous. The Times was told:
The reason I cite that is that, the charge having been made, the sub-editor can enjoy himself and say, "MP denies it." It is totally bogus and totally without substance, but immediately there is a slight taint in the air. That practice is okay, I suppose, for Fleet street editors. It is standard practice by reporters to say things, get people to deny them and then say, just like Lyndon Johnson, that those people have denied this or that charge. Whether that is appropriate for Government agencies is another matter, as the House may agree. However, English Heritage is unrepentant. That or another spokesman went on to say:
What are owners of listed buildings meant to do when they have been named and shamed? It appears that they are meant personally to spend enormous sums on repairing the degradation, much of which has occurred over centuries. But at whose behest? In my case, at that of some nameless, faceless officials at English Heritage; I have never seen one, to my recollection. A couple of people came to Saltwood and meandered around about 20 years ago. I like to think that we treated them with courtesy. I have not heard from them since; nor have I been given any indication of what I should be doing to avoid being shamed, never mind named.
The House is being indulgent and treating this matter lightly--perhaps I am not doing the subject justice. There are 1,500 buildings listed in this directory as being at risk. In every case where the building is owned privately,
pressure can be put on the owners to take action through legislation passed in this place--by Orders in Council, I believe. If they do not spend what is, in many cases, a virtually unlimited amount, the property can be confiscated. A compulsory purchase order can be issued if the property is held to be in danger.
"Tory MP denies claims he applied for a grant".
An unnamed, unidentified member of staff at English Heritage had said:
"We have discussed this with the owner"--
untrue--
"there seems to be no resolution at the moment"--
true enough, as there was no discussion--
"I think his inquiries have centred on grants."
Note the use of the word "think".
"I think his inquiries have centred on grants",
which I denied. I have never taken a penny-piece from the public purse for anything and never applied for the grant. However, the article goes on:
"English Heritage confirmed last night that there was no correspondence on file with Mr. Clark about grants."
In other words, the whole thing was pure invention.
"The register is intended to open constructive dialogue"--
not one of my favourite phrases and utterly, as we know, without meaning of any sort--
"but if we don't get it, we'll name the names in next year's edition."
The House may, in passing, ask what is meant by "constructive dialogue".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |