Never in peacetime has there been a more challenging year for the Metropolitan police, and never have its operations been more under the seachlight. This is an important debate in the policing year for London. It gives the Home Secretary a chance to account for his stewardship as the police authority. It gives right hon. and hon. Members the chance to criticise and make suggestions publicly. Of course, it is not the only chance, and I welcome the many interventions which come to me throughout the year from hon. Members representing London constituencies, even though I do not always agree with them. It is my duty to listen carefully to them and I also attach great importance to the periodic meetings that I have with them.

Before we get into the issues of the policing of London, it is worth taking a brief step back to consider the general portrait. The Metropolitan police is a big force, nearly 27,000 strong. It is now expanding again and will cost the ratepayer and taxpayer £850 million this year.

The force must cope not just with a crime rate which has been increasing fairly steadily for 30 years now, but with a constantly changing variety within that crime rate. There is ceaseless vigilance against terrorism. Drugs are the latest and most dramatic element within the scope of organised, large-scale crime. The force must cope with specific events, and obviously we think especially of the two riots in London last autumn. It must also cope with other events which swallow up many police officers in inevitable duties. The industrial dispute outside Wapping still involves several hundred police officers a day and at its maximum up to 1,700 or 1,800 officers on one evening. For football matches, 850 officers may be required on an average Saturday during the season. People exercise their legitimate right to demonstrate and there were five demonstrations last year in London which required more than 1,000 police officers.

The Metropolitan police perform that variety of tasks firmly within the British tradition of unarmed force under the law of reasonable force—the law with which all hon. Members are acquainted, which binds a police officer just as much as it binds any other citizen. It is worth remarking, in view of much that is written and feared, that firearms were used by the Metropolitan police five times last year. When I was in New York in May, I was told that the New York city police used firearms on 238 occasions. That is a contrast to which we must hold.

Before I deal with the inevitable complaints, criticisms and suggestions, the first fair comment must be that the job that I have described is well done. The House would not be doing its duty if it did not return that verdict, and the thanks which should go with it.

The police have to cope with strains and tensions in all our inner cities. I suppose that they are most formidable in London. No one, certainly not the police, supposes that they can cope alone with these strains and tensions. They are the front line in dealing with crime and disorder, but they are only part of the array of institutions and agencies —central, local and voluntary — that are needed to handle the results of the social and industrial revolutions in our cities.

It is important to make that point. I do not doubt that the Metropolitan police need more men and new equipment, and the media tend to focus on decisions in that area. But however many police are on the streets and however much equipment is available to them, it is not by these means alone that the strains will be eased and that society in our inner cities will be made more stable. Obviously, there needs to be more of a concerted effort by this array of institutions and agencies in order to encourage and stabilise the hearts of our cities.

In this effort the police play a big part. I note the comment of a Brixton youth worker in the Commissioner's report. He said:

"Life here could have been better if every agency had worked as hard as the police to make changes."

I should like to deal with three parts of the police effort —not with the enforcement process, with which I shall deal in a minute, but with the process of working with other agencies to obtain and build up the confidence and understanding of the citizens of London whom the police protect. An important strand of this policy is the continued development of community consultative groups under section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At the last count these groups had been established in 35 of the 40 boroughs and districts within the Metropolitan police district. The Commissioner hopes that groups will have been set up in the remainder by the end of this year.

Of course they vary, but several of the groups have now proved their worth over two years or more. They give the police a better feel for what most concerns local people, and they enable the police to explain their response to these concerns and the difficulties and constraints under which they operate. In times of crisis—this was certainly true in Brixton last autumn—they provide a safety valve for the expression of community anxiety, or even anger.

That was very noticeable in Lambeth and Brixton last autumn when the people voted with their feet by going to the meeting of the consultative group rather than to the rival meeting that had been organised by the council's police committee. These groups are becoming well established. It is very important that they should remain alive, responsive and as representative as possible of the diverse communities which they serve.

Will the Home Secretary tell the House why there is a problem in the five boroughs in which groups have yet to be set up? There are profound and honestly held disagreements between the police and the local communities in those areas. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that they can be swiftly resolved so that both sides feel that an adequate outcome has been reached and that a victory has not been scored by one side over the other?

I sympathise with that point. There are gaps, but I hope that they will soon be filled. There is a particularly important problem in Haringey, which I very much hope can be solved. The gaps arise for different reasons. So far, the negotiations have not succeeded, for a variety of reasons. There has been a series of negotiations in which the Home Office has tried to be helpful. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to be more specific about the five gaps when he winds up the debate.

My main point is that these consultative groups, although they are now enshrined in statute, are not basically a bureaucratic concept. They are an attempt, in the sphere of policing, to solve a problem that is recognised by all hon. Members — the danger of remoteness between those who exercise authority in the different spheres and those whom they seek to serve. The danger of remoteness is particularly difficult in London, which is a city of villages and many small and varied communities.

In those areas where the local police want to co-operate with the newly established police committees that have been set up by the local authorities, does the Home Secretary accept that they ought to be able to do so?

Yes, of course they can do that. The problem about the police committees—I mentioned the Lambeth police committee—is that so often they seem to have a different aim. In Lambeth, the contrast between the consultative committee, which enjoys a great deal of confidence among the ethnic minorities, and the police committee, which seems to have an anti-police and highly politicised purpose, does a great deal of harm.

The second area in which I am sure that the police are and should be active is in making further progress in the recruitment of officers from ethnic minorities. Last year, 44 recruits from ethnic minorities joined the force. There are now 307 in the force, compared with 138 in 1981. That is progress, but the figure is still far too low. The Commissioner and I both want to see many more black and Asian recruits, to make the force more representative of the community that it serves. This requires a sustained effort by the police. It also requires a sustained effort by influential people within the communities concerned.

For his part, the Commissioner has reviewed recruitment procedures and has canvassed a wide range of bodies and individuals for practical suggestions. As the House will have seen from the press, special recruitment exercises have been mounted in areas with large black populations. That effort will continue. I can quite understand why some people from the ethnic minorities are reluctant to join what may be represented to them as a racially prejudiced organisation. I am sure that they are wrong to take that line. There is no place for racism in the police service, and where it exists it must be rooted out. I strongly support the Commissioner in his efforts, through training and better supervision, to ensure that all officers treat individuals fairly and with respect.

This leads me to my third point, which is often raised legitimately, in particular by Opposition Members: response to racial attacks. This is a serious problem. It is perfectly right that information about racial attacks should be conveyed to the public as a whole, outside the areas that are mainly affected. A racial attack is aimed at a whole community, not just at an individual. It is this extra dimension which makes a racial attack so abhorrent. Last week I had a useful and interesting discussion with the Joint Committee against Racialism. I know that Sir Kenneth Newman shares my view that everything possible must be done to prevent such incidents and to apprehend and prosecute those who are responsible for them.

The approach of the Metropolitan police to these attacks is based on two propositions, which are not yet as widely known as they should be outside the police force. The first is that any incident should be regarded as racial if the victim or anybody else believes it to have been racially motivated. That is a quite revolutionary principle in policing terms. It is important that it should be applied throughout the Metropolitan police and that it should be understood by the members of the ethnic communities.

The second principle is that the suspected presence of a racial motive warrants a higher level of response from the police to an incident than it would otherwise receive. That, too, is a quite revolutionary principle in policing.

New approaches to the problem, involving the police in working with other local agencies, have been tried out on a pilot basis in five different parts of London. The lessons learnt have recently been issued in the form of new guidance to all operational commanders. These stress the value of follow-up visits to victims, the use of crime prevention officers to give advice and the involvement of experienced detectives. Neighbourhood watch schemes can also have a part to play in combating racial attacks.

However, the police need to know when and where attacks are occurring in order to respond effectively. It is natural that victims should be reluctant, for all sorts of reasons, to report incidents, but it is essential that they should overcome their reluctance. They will be more willing to do that if they feel assured that they will receive a sympathetic response from the police. The encouragement of local community leaders is all-important. There has to be mutual trust between them and the police, and that is what the police are aiming for.

I deliberately began with these aspects of policing in London because of frequent comments from people, some of whom should know better, that the Metropolitan police ignore these aspects. I doubt whether any police force in the world pays more attention to informing itself of what is going on in its patch, and to seeking to work with the citizens whom it protects.

The riots last autumn showed the need for intensifying these efforts, not abandoning them. That is not the only lesson. I greatly appreciate the way in which the Commissioner conducted his review of these events, the results of which were made known a few days ago. This was the result of an exercise in internal consultation by the Commissioner, in debriefing and gaining information from his men of all ranks. He deliberately engaged on this painstaking and inevitably rather slow operation to deal with the effect on morale of the riots last autumn. I admire the careful way in which the mistakes were analysed and presented to the public and the lessons drawn will help to restore the position.

As a result of his report, the Commissioner convinced me, and probably all hon. Members, that his force needed more men and equipment. When we took office in 1979, the strength of the Metropolitan police was 22,225, 16 per cent. below an establishment that had not been properly reviewed for many years. I comment on those figures because they are part of the story. Over the next four years, the strength grew steadily. By the end of 1983, it had increased by more than 4,500, to around 26,700. The strength of the civil staff, most of whom work in direct support of police officers, had also grown substantially.

In London, as in the rest of England and Wales, there was a second phase. The phase of growth was followed by a period of consolidation. There was a further modest growth, with the emphasis on making better use of existing resources. This must be right, and no Government will be pushed off that course. The resources devoted to the Metropolitan police are massive by any standards and the taxpayer and the ratepayer have a right to be confident that they are getting value for money.

There has been a strong drive to replace police officers by civil staff where they are doing desk jobs that do not require polce powers, training or experience. Over 300 officers were released for operational duty in this way in 1984–85 and 1985–86. The Commissioner intends that the reorganisation of his force should release a further 200 officers. To put the figures into some kind of perspective, I point out that the number of officers released through civilianisation is equivalent to the manpower of an average Metropolitan police division. That is quite an achievement.

My announcement to the House on 20 May marked the beginning of a third phase. It became clear last autumn that the escalating demands from crime, public disorder and terrorism were putting the Metropolitan police under pressure. I set in hand an urgent review to assess the proven need for additional manpower, taking into account the scope for increasing the operational strength of the force by further civilianisation and other efficiency methods. In May, after the review, I was able to announce a programme of steady expansion over the next four years. During this new phase, we shall not be allowing the emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness to falter.

The force will receive an increase of up to 1,200 in the police establishment over the next four years, on top of the 50 to which I agreed in principle last October. There will be an increase of up to 600 in the civil staff ceiling to help further with civilianisation. That should release at least a further 400 officers for operational duty. The effect of the reorganisation will amount to an increase in operational strength of 1,850, when the effects of the Commissioner's reorganisation are taken into account. As a first stage, I have already approved increases of 350 in the police establishment and 150 in the civil staff ceiling for 1986–87. These increases have to be phased to maintain the present high calibre of recruits and their training.

The exact deployment of this manpower will be a matter for the Commissioner. He plans to strengthen the squads dealing with serious crime, including drugs and fraud, and there will be additional resources for anti-terrorist and protection duties. However, he intends to allocate the lion's share to ordinary policing duties in divisions. I look forward to seeing a steady increase in the number of officers on the streets. We all know from our postbags and visits to different parts of London that this is what people living in London want.

As a result of the review, the Commissioner asked my authority to purchase a number of additional items of equipment. In my reply on 2 July to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), I announced that I had authorised the purchase of 700 additional radios, 80 protected personnel carriers, 24 ballistically protected vehicles and 1,500 long truncheons. I shall add a word of explanation about this equipment.

The protected personnel carriers are "minibus" style vans with some protection against missile attack, which the Metropolitan police will use for transporting teams of officers where there is disorder. The ballistically protected vehicles are specially armoured Land Rovers, needed to provide proper protection against firearms and sustained attack by petrol bombs. They will enable the police, when necessary, to go into the heart of a riot in safety. The vehicles are for use only in serious disorder and will not go out as normal patrol. They are being built as quickly as possible, but it will be some time before they are ready. In the meantime, the Metropolitan police are arranging temporarily to borrow a number of armoured protected vehicles from the Ministry of Defence. Attacks on the police at Tottenham involved the use of long poles and other similar weapons—many hon. Members will have seen these attacks on television—and unfortunately the police were unable to respond effectively with their shields and present issue truncheons. Hence the request for the longer truncheons and hence the authority that I have given the Commissioner to buy them. They will provide the police with a response to such a situation if ever, unfortunately, such a response is needed. Thus, it will make it less necessary to go further up the scale of response.

As I told the House on 2 July, the long truncheons are to be used only in serious disorders. They will play no part in normal day-to-day policing. I make no apology for having authorised this list of equipment—not for the everyday activities of the Metropolitan police but to ensure that they are not exposed to any unnecessary harassment, trouble, or perhaps loss of life, in moments of extreme difficulty.

However, to argue, as some have, that by asking for this equipment the Commissioner has changed the nature of the police force is absurd nonsense in the light of the facts that I have given to the House about the way in which the Metropolitan police organise their affairs.

It might be useful at this point to add that the concern of hon. Members is not just the one that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned; widespread training in riot techniques, the way in which riot police, are deployed, and the purpose to which they are put at any one time are of equal, if not greater, importance.

The Secretary of State may recall that I sent him a four-page account of what happened on the nights of 29 and 30 March, and I think that he will agree that my eyewitness account of the deployment of riot police and the claims of the Commissioner to the Home Secretary in his letter, and his letter to me of 14 May are incompatible. Are not the important factors the ways in which new equipment and existing equipment are deployed, and training for their use?

Of course, the training is crucial. The police have to be trained to deal with all manner of situations to which they may be exposed. That training needs modification from time to time, and inevitably has been modified as a result of the disorders of last year. It is essential that in every case the operations continue to be conducted under the general principles of an unarmed force and under the law of reasonable force.

As the hon. Member said, there is controversy about the methods of deployment at Wapping. I have gone through this carefully with a number of right hon. and hon. Members who came to see me about it. I have analysed it carefully with the Commissioner and where there are specific complaints and points they should be looked into. The hon. Gentleman is moving me from a general point, upon which I do not think we disagree, to the disagreements that we have about deployment at Wapping. I wish that there was no need for the deployments at Wapping and for the distractions which divert the police from the task of protecting Londoners from ordinary crime. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can argue that the situation at Wapping can simply be left unpoliced.

Drug trafficking is proably the single most threatening form of major crime. Last year the Commissioner increased the strength of the central drug squad by 50 per cent. from 38 to 57 from within existing resources. In May, I confirmed the agreement that I had earlier given in principle to an increase of 50 in police establishment for 1986–87 specifically to strengthen the force's efforts against drugs. The manpower increases which I announced should enable the Commissioner in due course to reinforce this effort still further.

Even in advance of getting these extra men, the central drug squad has proved highly effective. During 1985 it removed 40 major trafficking organisations from London. Those organisations had been dealing in heroin and cocaine and producing amphetamines. On the preventive side, the squad produced a lecture package about drug misuse which has been given to all community liaison officers.

None of us can be complacent about the size of the task that not only the police face in the matter of drugs. The low price and the high purity of the drugs still being peddled on the streets of London are grim indicators of the amount of drugs still reaching this country. I came back from a recent visit to New York greatly sobered by what I learned about the affliction of drugs that hangs over that city. We are lucky in comparison to New York. In New York I heard what are perhaps the toughest cops in the world saying that, whatever powers and resources they had, the key to the problem was education to reduce the demand. The educational preventative side is the area in which we need to redouble our efforts.

I apologise to the Home Secretary for having missed the beginning of his speech. No doubt he will have seen a report in the London Standard and will have had reports from the United States about crack, a new form of cocaine which is exceedingly cheap and which addicts find exceedingly effective. It is damaging to them. The Home Secretary said that he was in the States recently. What liaison is he maintaining between the Metropolitan police and police in the States to try to make sure that a crack epidemic does not hit London?

There is close liaison. The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to crack. It is a terrible scourge in New York city. A year or two ago it was simply something that a few eccentric people dabbled with in Los Angeles, but it then spread to an amazing extent. It is very cheap, potent and effective, as the hon. Member knows. Police forces throughout England and Wales are in close touch about the American experience, which so far, happily, has not reached our cities—at least not to any significant extent.

Less dramatic but hardly less worrying to Londoners is the steady onset of general crime, which has been continuing steadily for 30 years. It may have slowed down slightly last year, but it is still relentless. The Commissioner made it part of his force's goal last year to enhance the detection of specified offences, including robbery, burglary, drug misuse and racial attacks. Overall, the number of serious offences recorded by the Metropolitan police in 1985 was 3 per cent. higher than the year before. This total conceals worrying increases of 7 per cent. in offences of violence against the person and of 11 per cent. in robbery. It also obscures a heartening decrease of 8 per cent. in burglaries, including an 11 per cent. drop in burglaries from dwellings.

The number of arrests made for serious offences and the number of offences cleared up both rose by 6 per cent. Arrests and clear-ups increased in every offence category except burglary. This represents an improvement in the performance of the force against crime in a year when there were heavy demands from other quarters as well.

Although in everyone's opinion the clear-up rate is disappointingly low as a total percentage, it improved slightly last year, and for the most serious offences— homicide, sexual offences and violence against the person —the clear-up rates are much higher than average. The Metropolitan police have continued to invest a great deal of energy and commitment in crime prevention. This is a portfolio which has many aspects and there is huge scope for the expansion and greater effectiveness of crime prevention.

The item in the portfolio which has captured the public imagination is neighbourhood watch. The number of schemes has continued to multiply, and now stands at about 5,000 in London alone. There are encouraging signs that schemes are now beginning to spread from the suburbs into the inner city and the orange and blue neighbourhood watch sign has become a familiar feature in the streets of many parts of London.

It is important that local authorities—I am thinking here of Greenwich — which have been suspicious and obstructive about the neighbourhood watch schemes and have held up their development by withholding planning permission, should realise the importance of what is being done. Many of those who live in watch areas speak enthusiastically of falls in the level of burglary. With proper caution, the Commissioner is not at this stage making any large claims about the overall effectiveness of neighbourhood watch. This is not a sign of scepticism; it is simply that it is sensible to wait until it has been fully evaluated before reaching a general judgment.

The anecdoted and pieces of evidence coming to the surface about neighbourhood watch are encouraging about its impact on crime levels. Quite apart from that, there can be no doubt that neighbourhood watch has led to a greater feeling of security in many areas and has reduced the sense of helplessness in the face of crime. That is because a joining scheme is a practical, positive step that citizens can take to protect their own property and that of their neighbours.

Many right hon and hon. Members have longer acquaintance with the Metropolitan police than I have, but we all work in London and I hope that we all regard it as our force. Certainly, no responsible party can shelter within its ranks those who go out of their way to exploit every difficulty in which the police may find themselves or who try for political reasons to build up hostility to the police. I have deliberatly not developed those themes because this is not the occasion on which that should be done. This is a sufficiently practical feature in the day-by-day policing of London to find some part in this debate. Those who have pretensions to be taken seriously as supporters of the police cannot at the same time support for election to this House or to the boroughs of London those who slyly or in the open are enemies of the police. There will be occasions on which we can develop these points with practical evidence, and we shall not hesitate to do so.

Give us some names.

There is no shortage of names and in future there will be an opportunity to deploy them. My own impression, which I hope is widely shared, after nine months of being responsible for the police authority in London, is the professionalism of the force. There is the professionalism of the Commissioner and the leadership, but equally striking is the professionalism of the new recruits. I hope that all hon. Members will take the opportunity to meet and talk to the recruits.

I am sure that we were right to phase the further expansion which I announced on 20 May so as to make sure that there was no dilution of quality or lowering of standards in the intake.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right in what he said about the importance of training. Anyone who visits Hendon and sees what is going on there will be impressed.

The essence of professionalism is that professionals are never satisfied with their achievements and are conscious that they must have an open ear to the criticisms and suggestions that are made; that is true of the Metropolitan police and certainly true of training.

The police are professional in the versatility with which they cope with all their various tasks and they are also professional in the strength and sternness of the discipline arrangements. That is crucial. There was a long series of exchanges and developments about the incident some time ago in Holloway road and I am glad that the stalemate in that case was resolved.

The discipline point has been greatly reinforced by the effectiveness of the new Police Complaints Authority, which was illustrated most vividly by the swift way in which the police took over the supervision after the shooting of Mrs. Groce in Brixton.

We, the House and Londoners are right to be anxious about the rate of crime and the way it rises and has risen steadily during the lifetime of the previous Government and of this, and, indeed, for much longer than that. The police have no time to be despondent about that. They have to get on with the job of protecting London and Londoners. We have an admirable force, admirably led, and I hope that the account that I have given will help to show that they deserve the support and understanding of every Londoner.

First, I apologise to the House for being unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have long-standing engagements in South Wales later today, including meetings with the police there, which it would have been difficult for me to rearrange.

The past year has seen a further rise in crime in London and little evidence that, despite their very best efforts, the police are having much success in coping with that increase in crime. The Commissioner's report for 1985 contains all the reasons both for the rise in crime and for the frustrations of his force at being unable to respond as adequately as he would wish to the record crime wave.

The Commissioner deals first with the manpower shortage in the force, although he does not devote sufficient attention to certain aspects of that shortage. As the Home Secretary admitted, the failure to attract appreciable numbers of the ethnic minorities into the force continues, without any real remedies being put forward to counter that failure.

It is perfectly true that part of the problem lies in insufficient numbers from the ethnic minorities coming forward to join the force, but insufficient attention is paid to why too few come forward. One reason is perceptions among the minority communities about racialism in the police. The Commissioner's report should have devoted more than the most cursory passing reference to that undeniable problem, to which the home Secretary referred today.

What seem to be serious examples of an attitude in parts of the force that should be dealt with firmly are given in the Islington crime survey, a remarkable statistical compendium which throws much light on crime and fear of crime in that part of London. The survey shows that three quarters of young blacks, male and female, believe that the police treat them unfairly. That view is given weight by statistics on the use of stop and search powers which demonstrate that, while 31·6 per cent. of white males under 25 were stopped in Islington for search purposes—that itself is a remarkably high figure—the rate for young blacks being stopped was 52·7 per cent. Until firm action is taken to root out racialism, many black and Asian men and women will feel that policing is not a career for them.

In any case, application to join the force is not necessarily a passport to acceptance. The statistics in the Commissioner's report show that, while, overall, 19 per cent. of applicants for the force were interviewed last year, the proportion of applicants from the ethnic minorities who were interviewed was not 19 per cent. but 15 per cent.

The same discrimination continues to be shown against women. Despite continuing denials that a quota of 10 per cent. is operated for women, the proportion of women in the Metropolitan police continues to hover at somewhat below that figure—9·4 per cent. last year, almost exactly the same as the year before. Again, that is not surprising. While 21 per cent. of male applicants were interviewed, the figure for women was 16 per cent. While 63 per cent. of men interviewed were accepted, the figure for women was only 53 per cent.

Of course, the Commissioner's main worry is the size of his total force. He complains constantly that he has too few policemen and policewomen and that the response of the Home Secretary to his lamentations is distinctly inadequate. It certainly fails to live up to those grandiloquent promises of the Prime Minister at last year's Conservative party conference that the police had only to show need and they would be given what they needed. The famous blank cheque was taken to the bank and it bounced.

Whether the Metropolitan police need more men and women is open to argument and to proof. What is certain, and what emerges from every piece of evidence offered by the most impeccable authorities, is that such manpower as is available is not being used to maximum effect. That is a further argument in the case put forward by the Commissioner.

In one of the plethora of almost meaningless homilies to which the Home Secretary has taken to subjecting us, he said on 29 May:

"I therefore expect to see a steady increase in the number of officers on foot patrol, deterring the criminal and the hooligan and protecting and reassuring the citizen."

He said much the same thing today. But the answer to that pious aspiration that emerges from the Commissioner's report and from his strategy report issued in January this year is—fat chance.

That blighted statute, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, against whose lack of efficacy we warned during its prolonged passage through the House, is cited again and again by the Commissioner as one reason why he is hampered in his fight against crime. On page 14 of his report the Commissioner complains:

"Further drains on our street duty officers are caused by training commitments arising out of new legislation."

He draws attention to the limited time for teaching his force what he calls

"the complexities of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act."

On page 68 of his report he complains about "serious restrictions" on his scope being imposed by the training requirements of the Act. On page 73 he points out that his policing skills programme had to be suspended due to the "extensive training demands" imposed by the Act. Understandably, he describes that as "frustrating".

It is perfectly true, as the Commissioner reasonably points out, that when there is a major new piece of legislation, police officers have to be trained. What they are being trained in is essentially new safeguards for the citizen. The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man and he will acknowledge that, although the new Act is complex, it is simplicity itself compared with what it would have been if we had accepted the amendments constantly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

The safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are necessary only because of the unacceptable powers which have been inserted in the Act. If the Government had not given the police powers, against which we strongly argued during the 59 sittings on the Act, the safeguards which require this training, to which the Commissioner draws attention, would never be necessary.

On page 75 of his report the Commissioner states that he has been unable to implement a crime prevention training programme for operational constables, sergeants and inspectors due to the demands of training for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

In his strategy report, Sir Kenneth spells out the problem even more starkly. On page 47 of the strategy report, he says:

"I am concerned that future demands being placed on the Force, in particular those that will arise from implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other legislative requirements will, unless additional resources in terms of manpower and finance are made available, increasingly dissipate our capability to fully address ourselves to any emergent problems."

Again, the strategy report states the problem very bluntly. The Commissioner says:

"The levels of deployment of street duty constables, which includes home beat officers but not the district support units, was affected by the miners' strike. The Force has worked to maximise this visible element of policing because, among other factors, there is evidence that street patrolling reduces public fear of crime. Results, however, have been marginal. The pressures of public order and training have militated against major gains in this area."

The Commissioner's annual report says the same, as does another document which is perhaps even more damning, as it comes from the most senior officer of the House who is empowered to assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of public services. In his report on the Metropolitan police, which was issued less than three months ago, the Comptroller arid Auditor General said:

"There were also occasions when external demands (eg for public order duties elsewhere) left insufficient numbers to maintain essential services".

If training is depleting the force's ability to respond to crime, let alone to seek to prevent it, public order duties are having what in many respects is a crippling effect. The Home Secretary and the Commissioner seem at times to be obsessed with public order — sometimes to the apparent exclusion of all other issues. Outbreaks of public order are, of course, repugnant arid frightening. Whatever the causes, there can be no justification for violence and rioting. The public are understandably horrified when they see scenes of arson and mayhem on their television screens.

At the same time, it is very important to put such disturbing outbreaks into perspective, even when we are considering a year in which the Brixton and Tottenham riots took place, during which Police Constable Keith Blakelock and Mr. David Hodge were killed, and in connection with which Mrs. Cynthia Jarrett died and Mrs. Cherry Groce was shot and paralysed. The House will wish today to offer its renewed sympathies to the bereaved families and to Mrs. Groce.

Alarming as those disturbances were, they accounted for only a small proportion of crime in the Metropolis in 1985: 1,251 alleged offences out of a total of 732,559 offences in the Metropolis for the year. That is less than one fifth of one per cent. of the total. The number of public order offences in the Metropolitan police area last year amounted to 638, or 0·8 per cent. of the total. That is far fewer than one in a thousand. Yet, from the reaction of both the Commissioner and the Home Secretary, one would think that public order was the principal law and order problem in London, and in the country as a whole.

In the case of the Home Secretary, one cannot help feeling that that indefensibly disproportionate concentration on a fraction of 1 per cent. of all crime in London is a deliberate distraction from the abject failure of his and the Government's policies on law and order. Today was a very good example. The Home Secretary spoke for 24 minutes before he mentioned non-public order crime, and in a speech of 35 minutes he spent exactly three minutes —I timed it on my stopwatch—on the record outbreak of crime that is afflicting London.

I noticed the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat Freudian slip when he spoke about outbreaks of public order, and it may tell the House a little about some of his unspoken attitudes. However, to rest his case on the number of offences that are associated with public order is to misunderstand the problem. The whole problem, as stated by the Commissioner, is that it is very manpower-intensive for the police in London to have to allocate so many of their available men to the policing of public demonstrations and other public order problems.

I shall come shortly to the question of whether the police have to do that, as distinct from their being willing to, or wishing to. But let us look at one example. Huge sums of public money are misdirected to such events as the policing of the industrial dispute at News International at Wapping. More than 662,000 police man hours have been misapplied to that exercise. As much as 7 per cent. of the whole Metropolitan police force has been stationed there on one given occasion and nearly £1·5 million of public money has been spent on buttressing Mr. Rupert Murdoch's refusal to negotiate reasonably with those with whom he is in dispute. When criminals are running amok in London and throughout Britain, in many cases almost uncontrollably, it is unacceptable that the long-suffering police should be used against their will as a private security service to enable Mr. Rupert Murdoch to pocket his profits.

On this issue of public order, massive reports are compiled, weighty speeches are delivered and vast amounts of cash and equipment are allocated. I only wish that a fraction of that Government attention was devoted to the 99·9 per cent. of crimes which afflict Londoners and which mean that each London family has a 41 per cent. chance of being a victim of crime. Every survey of public opinion in London shows that there is an enormous fear of crime in the capital.

The Islington survey showed that crime was regarded as the second biggest problem in the borough, not far behind unemployment. Nearly half of all women in Islington worry about being raped, sexually molested or pestered. The survey showed that over a quarter of all people in Islington always avoid going out after dark because of their fear of crime, and that figure rises to over one third in the case of women. Those fears no doubt apply much more widely than to one borough or city.

The statistical section of the Broadwater Farm report, the part which everyone, regardless of his views on the report as a whole, will accept, shows that people on the Broadwater Farm estate wanted the police to concentrate on sexual assaults on women, heroin control, mugging, burglary and racial assaults. About 80 per cent. of all age groups and both sexes, including young blacks, saw crime as a big problem, and saw the top priorities for the police as being an immediate response to 999 calls, the detection of criminals, the deterrence of criminals and crime prevention advice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems about the statistics produced by the Metropolitan police is that there is a deliberate understatement of the number of racially motivated and racist attacks in London because of the method of collecting those statistics? Should not a clear instruction be sent to all police stations requesting much more vigilance in reporting racist attacks and racial incidents?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point which applies, for different reasons, to rape as well. We do not know the figures for some of the most serious offences. On Monday, I and my hon. Friends will meet the Home Secretary to discuss the whole question of racial attacks, and to see whether there is a basis upon which we can agree to legislate on the matter. I am glad that the Home Secretary devoted some attention to that point in his speech.

The apprehensions of those cited in the Islington and Broadwater Farm surveys are confirmed by a special survey that was conducted last August for the Metropolitan police by National Opinion Polls, and which was published in the Commissioner's strategy report. It showed that 68 per cent. of Londoners feared having their home broken into and having something stolen, that 63 per cent. feared having their home or property damaged, that 62 per cent. were afraid of being mugged or robbed, that 61 per cent. of women were afraid of being raped, that 60 per cent. of women feared being sexually molested and pestered, and that 54 per cent. of Londoners, male and female, feared being attacked by strangers.

Many of these fears are justified. In Islington, over the year which was surveyed, 31 per cent. of households had a serious crime committed against them. Crime is running rife in London. The one success last year was a reduction in the burglary level, and I heartily congratulate the Metropolitan police on the part that it played in this achievement. Unfortunately, however, it has not been maintained. The first quarter's figures for this year show that last year's 8 per cent. reduction in burglary has levelled off to a 1 per cent. drop.

The record on robbery, theft and criminal damage has also worsened. The situation was bad enough last year, when offences of theft rose by 33 per cent., violence against the person by 7 per cent., criminal damage by 10 per cent., robbery by 11 per cent., and fraud and forgery by 11 per cent. Racial attacks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has drawn attention, rose disturbingly. As my hon. Friend has said, these attacks cannot adequately be quantified.

I know that when my right hon. Friend sees the Home Secretary on Monday he will talk about racial incidents that are recorded in the Metropolitan police area and nationally. I ask him to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the disturbing increase in racial attacks in Newham, which, together with Tower Hamlets, records the largest number of racial attacks each year. This is a worrying and disturbing problem and one which concerns all those who represent Tower Hamlets and Newham.

I shall do that. We have a disturbing number of racial attacks in my constituency in Manchester and I shall be discussing that as part of the general problem. The Home Secretary, however, is the police authority for London, and I have no doubt that he will take particular account of that direct responsibility when I see him on Monday.

Crime presents a bleak picture, and one which continues to become bleaker. The deterioration in law and order in London in the seven years since the Government came to power can be described only as alarming. The clear-up rate continues to be extremely disappointing as well as very expensive. Last year the overall clear-up rate for crime in London was a depressing 18 per cent. The clear-up rate for theft was only 17 per cent., and for burglary it was only 10 per cent. The cost of clearing up crime in London was huge. Last year, average gross police expenditure per cleared-up crime in the other 42 police districts in England and Wales was £1,800, but in London it was £7,000.

At the same time, crime continues to increase. Last year, 732,559 serious offences were reported as having been committed in London. That was a 29 per cent. increase on the 1978 figures. Violence against the person in London under this Government has increased by 43 per cent., while burglary has increased by 27 per cent. and criminal damage by 69 per cent.

Let us consider the number of crimes committed per 1,000 of the population, comparing the situation now with what it was when the Government came to office. All crime has increased by 41 per cent. Burglary has increased by 38 per cent., violence against the person by 57 per cent. and criminal damage by 84 per cent. When the Government took office, 65 serious crimes were committed every hour in the Metropolitan police area, and the figure is now 84. On the same basis, 39 crimes of violence were committed every day, and the figure is now 55. There were 183 cases of criminal damage every day and there are now 310. Burglaries have risen from 336 a day to 425. Thefts have risen from 888 a day to 1,058. When the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who represents a London constituency, became Prime Minister, a serious crime happened somewhere in the metropolitan area every 56 seconds. There is now a serious crime committed every 44 seconds.

The fight against this disturbing escalation in crime is faltering. During the Prime Minister's period of office, the total clear-up rate in the Metropolitan police area has fallen from 21 per cent. to 18 per cent. The clear-up rate for theft has fallen from 20 per cent. to 17 per cent. For criminal damage, the rate has fallen from 14 per cent. to 11 per cent., and for burglary there has been a reduction from 11 per cent. to 10 per cent. The number of police officers has risen but the number of crimes per policeman or woman has risen faster, by 7 per cent. The clear-up rate per police officer has fallen by 14 per cent. under the Government. That is a devastating picture of crime in our capital and the surrounding areas.

The crime rate among young people continues to be especially disturbing. Of those arrested for notifiable offences, 48 per cent. were under 21 years of age. Of those arrested for robbery, 60 per cent. were under 21, and for burglary, 63 per cent. were under 21. Over 70 per cent. of those arrested for motor cycle theft were under 21.

Apart from the increasingly empty and unconvincing rhetoric that we have from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister — we have had the right hon. Gentleman's speech today and there was the report of the Prime Minister's interview with The Guardian yesterday — what are the Government doing to try to prevent crime or to pursue it? The Home Secretary has said repeatedly that crime should not be a party political issue, and I agree with him. He says that crime has been rising, regardless of the Government who have been in power, for 30 years. Indeed, he said that again today. It seems, however, that the 30 years began in 1979. From 1974 to 1979 the Conservatives lost no opportunity of blaming crime on the Labour Government.

As the Government continue to mouth platitudes on law and order, it is right to ask what they are doing o cope with it. The best way of coping with crime is crime prevention, and there have been two seminars on crime prevention at 10 Downing street. Last week the Home Secretary gave a parliamentary answer nearly a column long in Hansard in which he claimed to list what the Government were doing to prevent crime. He might just as well not bothered to plant the question because the answer added up to nothing in particular.

The Prime Minister, in one of her unguarded moments, told the House in March that people ought to see to their own crime prevention. She said:

"Most people will and should be able to make their own provision for crime prevention." — [Official Report, 13 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1079.]

The problem is that those who are most vulnerable to crime are those who are least able to take precautions against it. The Islington survey shows that income is a major factor in determining whether security devices are installed. Many people who would like to take crime prevention measures cannot afford to do so. That is why such measures cannot be left to the market and why the next Labour Government, will introduce a safe estates policy and will make crime prevention grants available to both home owners and tenants.

As the Home Secretary admits and as the Commissioner proclaims, we must take action to tackle the causes of crime. What the causes include is made clear by the Commissioner in his review of civil disturbance that was issued a few days ago. His opening paragraph reads:

"In 1981, Lord Scarman in his report described the social conditions prevailing in the Borough of Lambeth and particularly in Brixton. These features are as prevalent today as they were then and in some instances may have become more acute. Such conditions create a society lacking in stability and community identity, in the absence of which policing by consent becomes more tenuous."

Sir Kenneth Newman filled out that picture in his strategy report. He said:

"there are many areas of the city of London which are among the most deprived in the country …. Unemployment in London has continued to rise more sharply than in the rest of the United Kingdom and long term unemployment in particular is a problem …. It is difficult to quantify the impact of such unemployment on policing demands but I believe it will further increase social polarisation which may cause problems for police. Along with those categorised as 'Long-term Unemployed', the levels of unemployed school-leavers and young people are of particular concern to police in a city under stress from a variety of socio-economic forces. Whilst the complex inter-relationship between unemployment and other social indicators makes it extremely difficult to draw any causal link with crime, it is nevertheless fair to say that large numbers of disaffected and bored young persons in an area arc likely to become a police problem."

The Home Secretary confirmed that view in two speeches that he made earlier this month. He spoke about dereliction, despair, discrimination, crime and violence, social stress and polarisation. He talked about money that the Government were putting into the inner cities. He mentioned the urban programme, the rate support grant and the housing programme. The latest figures for the urban programme show a 3 per cent. cut for the relevant London boroughs this year. Under the Government rate support grant has been cut for the GLC area boroughs by £6,000 million. Under the Government, housing investment programme moneys have been cut for those boroughs by £1,200 million. Under the Government, unemployment in those boroughs has risen by 270,000. It has more than tripled.

The Home Secretary must persuade his colleagues that he should put our money— the taxpayers' money, the ratepayers' money — where his mouth is. He should quote to them 'the disturbing words of Commander Alex Marnoch, who was in charge of Brixton jail at the time of last autumn's riot. He said:

"if unemployment continues to rise and the stabilising middle-age black population continues its exodus to safer areas, further major disturbances will be inevitable."

Commander Marnoch called for fresh initiatives from the Government, the local council and education, housing and social services departments. That is not easy under rate-capping arrangements. Commander Marnoch continued:

"Unless there is an influx of extra jobs, or the population moves away, we are going to have serious problems."

The Home Secretary should remind his Cabinet colleagues of the words spoken by Lord Whitelaw when he was Opposition spokesman on such matters:

"A Government that cannot protect its own citizens from attack in the streets of its towns and cities, that cannot protect property from damage, or homes from intrusion, has failed to live up to the basic duties of Government."

Thatcherite slogans will not solve crime in London and elsewhere in Britain, nor will they help the police in their vital, dangerous and difficult task. Years of failure under the Government have demonstrably proved that. What we need is not shrill hectoring, but patient effort — not instand slogan solutions, but hard and dedicated work over a long period.

The objective must be to take unspectacular but sensible measures that have a chance of stemming the rise in crime and, with luck, begin to turn it back from the record levels which it reaches year by year under the Government. That needs a partnership between people, police, local government and national government. We in the Labour party are dedicated to bringing that partnership about.

rose—

Order. It will be evident to the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate. The debate will be interrupted by a statement at 11 o'clock. Therefore, I appeal for brief contributions.

It is always a pleasure to speak in a debate on the Metropolitan police because they are among the world's great police forces. They are undoubtedly one of the most accountable police forces. We are able to debate its affairs not only in this Chamber but in committee, in our consultations with the commissioner and his senior policy group, and, of course, with the police authority for London, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Over the years, the increase in both money and manpower in the Metropolitan police has been substantial. Spending has increased from £295 million in 1978–79 to over £850 million in 1986–87—a 40 per cent. increase in real terms. Manpower is capable of rising to an establishment of 28,415 against the dismal days of the early 1970s when the strength of the Metropolitan police was around the 20,000 mark.

In addition to uniformed police manpower, the Metropolitan police has received remarkable resources in the form of its civilian strength, which was 3,355 in 1965 as against a ceiling today of nearly 13,500. The resources given to the Metropolitan police are substantial. I think that all hon. Members welcome that.

All hon. Members understand that the problem that the Metropolitan police faces in dealing with crime is complicated. Ninety five per cent. of all crime which affects the lives of people who live within the Metropolitan police area—not only those living within the boundaries of the 32 London boroughs but those who reside in the nine parliamentary constituencies outside those boroughs that are policed by the Met—is crime that relates to motor vehicles which constitutes 30 per cent. of reported crime to the Metropolitan police. Opportunist burglary accounts for about 25 per cent. of the crime figure. The rest is made up of thefts, vandalism, and so on, which are a great inconvenience to the ordinary householder whether he lives in suburbia or on an inner city council estate. The more serious crimes, which account for 5 per cent. of the figure, include murders, rapes and serious robberies which attract a great deal of public attention.

If we are to tackle the other 95 per cent. of crimes, we must consider how the public can be involved in the prevention of those crimes in partnership with the police. Also, we must consider how local authorities and other institutional groupings can contribute to the prevention of crime. In terms of the auto crime problem, car perimeter security attempts to design out crime. That probably offers more hope for the control of such crime than do patrolling police officers.

We must recognise the real limitations that are placed on the effectiveness on the police in London. Although patrolling police officers are welcomed and are a general reassurance to the public, it is a fact that of the 95 per cent. of crimes, very few are prevented by patrolling police officers. That is certainly true of burglaries. They occur under circumstances of stealth in blocks of flats. People climb through back gardens and enter houses where windows and doors may have been left unlocked and where the home owner or the landlord has failed to provide proper resources for the prevention of such an offence. We cannot blame the police for increases in opportunist crime.

We should recognise that every year there is growth in the availability of goods and money to steal, and this is best illustrated by the auto crime problem. In 1948, there were 2·25 million motor vehicles on the street; in 1986, there are 17·25 million—little wonder that the problem of auto crime has grown year by year. The same is true of burglaries. The availability of money in flats and houses has made stealing attractive to youngsters. As we have heard, half the number arrested for committing such crimes are young people under 21, many of whom are still at school. In fact, the peak ages for offending are 14 or 15. We must consider the problem in the light of the fact that the education system seems to be so boring to many young people that they opt out of school.

The problems of resolving crime in London will not go away simply because there are more police officers and resources. They will be contained by what the community does in consultation with property owners, whether private or public. The Government are clearly in the vanguard in promoting crime prevention involving the whole community. I commend the experiences of the former Conservative-controlled London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which introduced the scheme to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seemed to refer — that of giving assistance to the poorer members of the community to install crime prevention devices on doors and windows. That scheme was effective. I hope that those ideas will be built on elsewhere, but they require the local authority's willing co-operation.

The good news about the Metropolitan police record is that its investigation and clear-up rate of serious crime is good, on the whole. The clear-up rate for murder is 93 per cent. or more and for robberies it is 70 per cent. The detection rate for other serious crimes is good and provides a deterrent. Crime prevention offers one of the most important hopes for London people.

I take issue with the suggestion that the use of the police on public order duties is a waste of their time. I wish that fewer demonstrations and public order events required the attendance of the police. The Labour party cannot escape its responsibility. So many of the demonstrations which are organised in central London owe their origin to the Labour party and its supporters. If the Labour party really cares about good policing of London and about the effective use of police resources, it should impose greater moderation on their supporters and on their use of the public highway.

The same is true of Wapping. I did not quite understand the intention of the right hon. Member for Gorton. Did he intend that the police should be withdrawn from the streets of Wapping? Did he intend that the mob should take over private property? Did he intend that anarchy should prevail? The right hon. Gentleman should make it clear exactly what his policies are.

The police consultative arrangements are important. Most of the London boroughs have willingly co-operated in establishing them. It is a great disappointment to those of us who strongly believe in police-public relationships and crime prevention that, so far, nine Labour-controlled boroughs are not taking part in these arrangements, despite the will of the House which has urged their creation. It is humbug for the Labour party to pretend an interest in crime prevention and in good police-public relations, but in practice, in the authorities which it controls, to deny the opportunity for that consultation to take place. It is significant that in the London borough of Haringey, for example, there is no police consultative arrangement. That is tragic and unhelpful from the point of view of the people living in the borough.

It is interesting that Lord Gifford's report, which is, of course, a partisan document, refers to greater consultation between the police and the community. It is significant that Lord Scarman said the same in his 1981 recommendations. It is tragic that sections of the Labour party in London deny the opportunity for this consultation to take place in large areas of London where police-public relations are crucial.

The House often has debates on the Metropolitan police. It is customary for Conservative Members to praise and support the police, but we must at the same time be fairly critical of them. I know of no London Member who does not receive complaints about the way in which the police relate to the public. The police force in London is young and well trained. Nevertheless, the first encounter of many members of the public with the police is often difficult. The police must readdress themselves to the issue of how they relate to the community, especially to young people. It is no good setting up structures for good public relations if the police on the beat cannot carry out the intention of those instructions in their relationships with individuals.

The commissioner's proposals for the reorganisation of the police force are very good. At long last we have achieved a command structure in London with the emphasis on decentralisation, sending down to the districts and divisions as much control and accountability for police action as possible. I think that Sir Kenneth Newman will be remembered as the commissioner who set in train the better structure, organisation and officer training of the Metropolitan police. Some of the benefits will take time to emerge, but I believe that we shall see them in the years ahead.

I have referred briefly to crime prevention. I believe that the role of the local authorities in working with the Metropolitan police to prevent opportunist crime will be one of the most important features of crime prevention. I hope that that role will be developed and extended in the years to come.

I welcome the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) to his first debate on this subject since his appointment last autumn as Home Secretary. I welcome also his slightly less abrasive style of introducing the subject compared to that of his predecessor. Another change since last year's debate is the fact that the London-wide authority which took an interest in these matters—the Greater London council—no longer exists. I look forward to the day when there is —I say this with no disrespect to the Home Secretary—a broader and more democratic base for the authority over the London police force than one Government Minister.

I shall quietly issue one rebuke. I think that I am right in saying that on nearly all, if not all, occasions the Home Secretary fell into the trap of talking about police men in the context, for example, of the increase in police numbers as opposed to using less sexist language. I believe that he realises that we have and need more police women. Already there are a substantial number. In describing the police force in London, the Home Secretary should recognise the role that policemen are required to play.

As we contemplate policing in London in 1986, the first issue which we should consider is the environment in which policing occurs. The Home Office will be fighting a continual battle unless and until the trend of social decline in inner London is reversed. This is best evidenced by unemployment, especially in the inner London boroughs. Unless and until we reduce our massive unemployment, especially of young adults and men, the general level of social unrest and discontent will continue to increase and policing will inevitably be more difficult.

It being Eleven o'clock MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Mr. Peter Brooke—statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We had to ask yesterday For a statement about the EC budget and that was granted for today. However, as yet I have had no copy of the statement. The EC budget is an extremely complex matter. The Government are apparently proud of their achievements there and yet they cannot possibly reveal them to the Opposition spokesmen so that they can get a sight of them before the budget statement takes place. It is an utter disgrace. I cannot see what the Government think they are playing at. It is just another example of their sheer incompetence.

I should like to respond to the point of order. The opening paragraph of my statement apologises to the official Opposition for any delay in delivering the statement to them. However, all the figures in it had to be double-checked with Brussels and Strasbourg during the morning. I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is absolutely outrageous. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mrs. McDonald) is expected to make a considered contribution to this statement and the following discussion without having had the opportunity to look at the statement. Surely we could at least defer it for half an hour or an hour so that the Opposition have an opportunity to look at it and study it properly.

I do not think that I have any authority to delay this statement. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to hear what the Minister has to say and take it from there.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is better for the House to have a little time to contemplate these complicated matters before asking questions off the cuff. Surely that makes sense.

It seems that it would be for the general convenience of the House if the Opposition had an opportunity to study the statement. That being so, I shall return to the Chair at half past 11. I think that that will give us sufficient time for the statement.

The Home Secretary in part alluded to the issue of drugs which gives rise to concern, but he did not mention alcohol. In 1983 and 1984 the battle against drugs was seen to be one of the chief concerns in the deployment of resources for the policing of London. One of the underlying trends on the street is that the problem is clearly increasing again and the initial success is now being overtaken by a growing general trend across the range of drug use, not just of heroin, which has been of chief concern, but of crack, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). We need to find ways in which we can not only contain the problem but develop a strategy which works to pick up, not only the big dealers, who are obviously the key to a successful reduction and restriction of drug dealing in London, but the dealers at the next tier. In all honesty, I fear that at the moment, the battle against continuing and pervasive drug use in London is at most being held, and certainly not being won. We need to find ways to continue more effectively to develop strategies and should not just content ourselves with the new structural ways of trying to deal with the problem.

I hope that the Home Secretary also recognises that if there is also a problem of regular and consistent alcohol abuse, especially by young people in areas of high numbers of licensed premises, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, there will be a massive use of police personnel dealing with offences which are often caused by one person who has been drinking against another who has also been drinking. In London the number of offences is great, the level of serious crime is great, and the percentage of that affected by alcohol is substantial.

I am sure that the Home Secretary recognises the problems in all urban areas where drink and crimes committed by the young adult are often interlinked. One cannot ignore this link as part of the general responsibility that the Home Office has for the control of licensed premises and so on. I make no suggestion that there should be a censored society but I do make a suggestion that there should be more responsible decision-making as to where and how one can allow late-night entertainment to continue in places where it does maximum disservice to a local community, and where there has clearly been regular previous abuse within that community.

I now turn to prevention. One of the mechanisms set up as part of the process of making policing responsible and accountable to the community—policing by consent—is the consultative committees. The Minister of State is aware of that and it has been raised in the meetings that he and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have on a regular basis with me and my colleague, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), and also with representatives from other parties in London.

There were to be consultative committees set up everywhere under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but they are not all in place. There appears now to be a discrepancy about how many. The Home Secretary suggested that six local authorities do not have consultative committees. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) suggested that there were nine. I know less about other areas than I know about Southwark. When the Minister winds up, I should be grateful if he would include reference to those points. I hope that he will say what he considers to be the ways forward and not look back in a recriminatory way. We need to find ways to establish and make effective these committees.

In Southwark there was a severe problem. Both sides felt that they had a good case. The local authority and impartial participants, such as the Church, in the person of the Bishop of Woolwich, Methodist ministers and so on, became involved and felt that the police were not being sufficiently responsive to the desire to integrate the community. There was the local authority-established consultative procedure and the police procedure. While there are two competitive procedures and both sides feel that the other is being unreasonable, we do not make progress in establishing a proper forum in which people can properly air their concerns in a public place.

Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman with his point. My information about nine Labour-controlled boroughs not taking part in the scheme came from a document which those boroughs published called "Policing London, July-August 1986." I assume that it is correct in what it says.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is why it is important that the Minister, if he can, gives us the most up-to-date position and tells us of any plans to resolve those problems.

Another important area in the prevention of crime is the special prevention needed for the vulnerable in our society. Two of those groups have been mentioned—women and ethnic minorities. Clearly it is right that the police should be deployed to ensure that those people begin to feel the security which they do not feel at present. Another group which is increasingly vulnerable is old people. Nothing is more horrifying than the regular series of reported offences of the most savage type often committed by young people on old people, especially old people on their own. We need to establish—it applies particularly within policing—ways in which the police locally are aware of the places where old people live, whether privately or in council social services homes, residential accommodation, and the areas where old people are concentrated. They should try to direct, not only neighbourhood watch, but other local mechanisms for mutual support, so that there are many more ways in which old people can feel secure in their own homes. Not only do they now not feel secure outside, in the street, on the estate, in the lifts or on the staircases and so on; they often now feel insecure in their own homes. It must be a priority in terms of expenditure. We should look at ways of providing grants to provide methods to help such people without them having to try hard to find that help. The police should be seeking ways of preventing crime being directed at them.

With regard to the response to crime, it is welcome that the establishment is being increased. That will help. The sooner that happens, the better. It is welcome that increasing numbers of police in uniform are being released from civilian work. Since I have been in the House, I have sought to have that done—it is a proper development.

However, I remain to be convinced about the net effects of reorganisation, in terms of increased personnel. I am reassured that we are still to have a consultative level, according to the latest letter that I have received. It is to be on a local authority basis for the time being, with the abolition of the police districts. Particularly given that the consultation process was unsatisfactory, I hope that we shall see the rewards that we were originally promised. My recollection is that last year we were told that there would be 300 extra police officers on the ground. In his speech today, the Home Secretary suggested that there were 200. Unless I am mistaken, that is a counting down by some 50 per cent.

I shall be unhappy if the reorganisation does not produce substantial benefits in front-line policing. One of the arguments for it was that administrators would be taken away from New Scotland Yard so that there would need to be less bureaucracy. People need to see the service, not lots of bureaucrats. I am sure that the Minister of State will accept that. I hope that he will appreciate that the test of reorganisation will be the number of people on the ground delivering the policing service.

The Home Secretary must accept that he does not yet appear to have an adequate answer to an important point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) as to why, despite the massively increased cost and increased police numbers, we still have such an unsatisfactory clear-up rate compared with some time ago. This last year, there may have been a slight increase in some of the areas of clear-up, but it is less than the national average improvement. We must keep on questioning why the massively expensive police force in London does not do better in clearing up many of the areas of crime. I accept that murder and homicide have a good clear-up rate, but the intermediate levels of crime still have a poor clear-up rate. Intrusions into people's houses and some crimes of violence against people have low clear-up rates. We need to work particularly hard because it is unsatisfactory that so much time and effort is deployed to so little effect.

The Home Secretary gave the figures for the number of times last year that firearms were used in London—five, compared with 238 in New York. I recognise that, but the other important figure is the number of occasions on which police officers go out equipped with firearms. That is important, because the tradition of an unarmed police force is one that we want to sustain. None the less, it is increasingly in question because increasing numbers of police go out armed, and the authority for the police being armed either seems to be unjustified in retrospect, or is worrying to the community or both.

I accept that there has been an increase in the number of crimes committed with firearms, and that we need to do more to restrict the use of firearms. The Home Secretary will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich and I raised this matter with him. More should be done to cut the outlets of firearms, allowing them to be used for crime. Ideally, the response should be to restrain the police from dealing with the problem in the same way. Otherwise, the problem escalates. That matter intensely worries many people in London.

The issue of firearms has been steadily reduced in recent years. The latest figure for 1985 compared with 1984 was another 14 per cent. reduction. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the absolute figures when I reply.

I am grateful for that response, and I shall be grateful for the figures. I hope that the Minister accepts that the public need reassurance that the police arc not being increasingly equipped with firearms.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a further problem that more police are now being trained in the use of firearms, even if the issue of firearms is being reduced? Taken with the Commissioner's call for preparedness to use firearms, a dangerous precedent is being set.

The report that was produced a week ago made it clear that there would be more training, in the context of the public order suggestions by the Commissioner.

Although there is to be no immediate deployment of plastic baton rounds, they are now to be provided. I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will accept that there would be grave discontent and substantial worry if from provision we went to deployment. It is bad enough that they are being provided -anywhere — my party opposes that. I appreciate the dilemma, but we do not want Northern Ireland on the streets of London. Many people rightly fear that when they know that such weapons are in the armoury.

Policing has to go on day in, day out. It does not help either the police or the community when the police are distracted from their main task of preventing and dealing with crime. I have had correspondence with the Home Office, and I am not yet satisfied with the answer, about the massive deployment at Wapping—and the people at Wapping are not all thugs, as has been suggested by one Conservative Member. Many of those people have had no previous convictions in their lives. They go there to picket peacefully. They come to constituency surgeries such as mine and complain, saying "We were there protesting and the police started to interfere in our right to protest." Then there is escalation and the affair gets out of hand. There have been some horrendously violent incidents.

Last year it was the miners' strike that took police away from the streets of London. This year it is Wapping. Many incidents are partly self-induced responses. Although one has to make sure that in areas where there is a real risk of public disorder there is an adequate police presence, I do not believe that the way in which the police have responded in Wapping has been necessary as a response to the protest or compatible with the proper deployment of police throughout London. When police cannot be identified by individuals on the streets—there are real complaints — the Home Office's response should be, "Are we doing the right thing?" Action should be taken which will lead to a reverse of the escalation that has been added to by the number of police on the streets there.

Many public order protests, such as the recent antiapartheid march, take place with thousands of people on the streets of London, and pass off peacefully every time. I hope that we can allow the police of London to get on with their job without being distracted. Many do an excellent job for Londoners, but they have an enormous way to go. I hope that the Home Secretary will take away from the debate not only our support for the initiatives that have been taken, which go in the right direction, but our concern about the things that distract the police from doing the job that we all wish them to do. I hope that he will respond in a way that will reduce the concern of many hon. Members about some of the ways in which London has been policed in the past 12 months.

I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I welcome very much what he said, especially his reference to Lambeth, to which I shall return.

I should like to refer to one or two of the problems that affect some of my constituents. The first is prostitution in Streatham. Areas that have never been afflicted by that malaise in the past are being so afflicted, and it is causing great distress among my constituents. I have written to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about it. We all know what an extraordinarily difficult problem it is. I am told by the police that many of the ladies who arrive in Streatham to ply their trade come from King's Cross. I do not know whether that is true.

There are four possible remedies. The first is already being taken to some extent in Streatham. An extra police budget has been allocated by the chief superintendent, and there are regular patrols of two officers, who regularly make arrests. Apparently it is having some effect, but the problem is that to have a permanent effect, which will probably do no more than squeeze the problem into someone else's constitueny, those patrols must be kept up for another six months or a year, to break the link between the punters, as the police call them, and the prostitutes. That takes manpower and time. It is a drain on resources.

There are more police in Streatham than there were when the Conservative Government came to office, but there is now far more demand for "aid" for such places as Wapping and to cover demonstrations. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) thinks would have happened if no police had been sent to Wapping. I am prepared to wager that the News International building would not now be standing and perhaps there would have been loss of life. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been Home Secretary he would have arranged police protection. I wonder what would have happened during the raid on the distribution centre. Had a responsible Labour Government been in power, I am sure that they would have reacted in the same way.

I hope that the Streatham police force can continue its patrols. If it cannot, the situation will deteriorate again. A grave nuisance is being caused to ratepayers. They are molested on the pavement outside their houses or even in their front gardens. They find couples behind their garages. It is too much. Something must be done.

In Southampton the public are being asked to give confidential information about number plates of cars cruising the streets. The police then interview the drivers and ask them why they were driving round the streets. The police in Streatham are prepared to do the same. Considerable difficulties might be involved and it would be time-consuming, but the police are prepared to follow Southampton's example because of its deterrent effect.

Last year the penalty imposed on convicted ladies averaged £30. That is nonsense. I do not know how long that sum has remained unchanged, but the maximum fine for the offence is much higher. I hope that magistrates and justices of the peace will consider imposing more realistic fines.

I am urged by my constituents to press for the reintroduction of custodial sentences. I am not convinced that that is the way forward. I doubt that it is because too many people are already in our prisons. Some of the girls have families and small children who would have to be looked after if the women were imprisoned. However, I should like to know the Minister's view.

Another possibility is that of licensed brothels, which they have in France and Germany. I should find brothels repugnant. The idea would not command public support, and the House would not support such a move, so that cannot be the way forward. To repeat: we must have sufficient police to maintain patrols. Higher penalties should be imposed and we should consider following Southampton's example of lateral thinking.

Many hon. Members will have seen the alarming headline in The London Standard describing a heroin war in the streets of Brixton and a drug-related shooting. I see the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) present. His constituency takes in part of Brixton, which is divided between three constituencies in all. Two people were recently shot at Cynthia's night club in Acre lane.

Shortage of manpower causes a problem. The central drugs squad at the Yard is of enormous back-up help, but it is mainly involved with the major dealers and, rightly, with importation. That does not help the police in my constituency when dealing with the "Yardies", for instance, as The London Standard calls the new gang which is trying to take over and is behaving ruthlessly.

Only 12 officers are assigned to the drugs squad in Brixton. They are finding it extraordinarily difficult to cope. As always, manpower and money are the problem. Twelve men are not sufficient to cope with the task.

In Brixton, 11 squads are involved in major investigations. These include nine murders, one investigation for linked rape and another for the drug-related shooting. They have made six arrests and only five cases are outstanding. A man has been arrested in connection with the rape and another for the shooting at Cynthia's night club. The squads are doing well, but more resources are needed to contain the drugs problem as well in Brixton.

The situation is complicated. In Brixton a car bearing CD plates and from an African country is regularly on the "front line" and apparently makes frequent trips. The driver of the car knows he is under police surveillance. This is an illustration of the problems confronting the police in Brixton.

Streatham has about 60 neighbourhood watch schemes. They are first class. The year before last burglary figures fell by 5 per cent. and last year by 17 per cent. I agree with the police that that reduction is due partly to neighbourhood watch. A serious drawback is Lambeth council's reluctance to allow neighbourhood watch schemes on Lambeth council estates. That reluctance is gradually being broken down by pressure, but it is inexplicable that Lambeth council should not support the schemes.

What about neighbourhood policing—a phrase which sprang from the Scarman report? It is thought by some people, who are not aware of what is happening, to be soft policing. Streatham practises neighbourhood policing and it is certainly not soft.

The principles are, first, that the law must be upheld. Then, of equal importance, there is the need to secure the understanding and co-operation of the local community. That is what I mean and what the police mean by neighbourhood policing. Perhaps the police do not always achieve that aim but they try hard. They try to achieve the aim in two main ways in Streatham. The community police consultative group has already been mentioned. That group is experiencing difficulties in Lambeth. The police committee set up by Lambeth council has refused to discuss with the police matters of importance, and merely writes letters of complaint. However, with the change of leadership, meetings take place about every two months with Miss Linda Bellos, the new leader of Lambeth council.

I can give an example of the attitude towards the police in Lambeth. Two elderly people were recently strangled at an old persons' home. So far the police have not been permitted to take elimination prints from the staff. I hope that they will be allowed to take those prints. The police are prepared to take them on the premises.

I find it extraordinary that Lambeth council has thrown the community police consultative group out of the town hall. It is no longer allowed to hold meetings there. This group, which is of such importance to the community, has to hunt for church halls or community halls in which to meet. It has no resting place because the town hall, owned by the people of Lambeth, is denied to it. That is disgraceful. I know that my right hon. Friend's sympathies are with that group and I should be grateful if he can do anything to help. Understandably, attendance at meetings is falling slightly. However, it is going extraordinarily well. The main thing is that the police and the groups which attend are learning from each other about their respective problems and consequently the meetings are becoming much more constructive. They understand the points of view and the restraints. The fact that we have got through the period since September last year, when there were riots, so well until today—I make no predictions about what might happen, but I am very optimistic—is in great part due to the group, and it is vital that it should continue.

The second part of the neighbourhood community policing—

It being half past Eleven o'clock MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to his ruling this day.

Before I call the Minister of State, Treasury, to make his statement, may I say that I deferred the statement today for half an hour to accord with what I took to be the unanimous view of the House, taking into account the exchanges which took place yesterday in the debates and the extreme complexity of this subject. I must make it clear that what has happened today should not be taken as a precedent, and that statements on Fridays will take place at 11 o'clock and on any other day immediately after questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the proceedings with this point of order. We are told that the House exercises control through the accountability of the Home Secretary to the House over the Metropolitan police. Since this is one of the rare opportunities that we have to debate the affairs of the Metropolitan police, I hope that this complex subject will not detain the House so long that we cannot continue our discussion of a matter of great importance to Londoners.

I always take such matters into account, on a Friday or any other day.

I am glad to have the opportunity to report to the House on this week's negotiations in Brussels and Strasbourg, which culminated in the adoption yesterday afternoon of a Community budget for 1986.

The Budget Council met in Brussels on 8 and 9 July and in Strasbourg on 10 and 11 July. I served as Chairman of the Council and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury represented the United Kingdom at the 8 and 9 July meeting. The Council reached agreement with representatives of the European Parliament at 3 am yesterday, and the Parliament voted on the budget yesterday afternoon. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall arrange for the main figures to be published in the Official Report.

The starting point for this week's negotiations was the European Court's judgment on the 1986 budget delivered on 3 July; copies are being placed in the Library. This found that the Parliament exceeded its legal powers in seeking to adopt the budget last December, in the absence of agreement with the Council, and declared the 1986 budget process to be incomplete.

The Commission responded by putting forward an amending letter which consolidated the budget voted by the Parliament last December and the Commission's own preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget presented in May. Compared with the Council's second reading budget of last autumn, the proposals in the amending letter provided for an extra 915·3 mecu, or £569 million of agricultural guarantee expenditure, an extra 492 mecu, £306 million, for commitment appropriations and an extra 1,326 mecu, £824 million, payment appropriations for the structural funds and non-obligatory expenditure, together with an increase of 500 mecu, £312 million for the United Kingdom's abatement.

The outcome finally agreed between the Council and the Parliament provided for a further addition of 184·7 mecu, £115 million, agricultural guarantee expenditure, and a reduction of 399 mecu, £236 million, in commitment appropriations for the structural funds and other non-obligatory expenditure, including a special reserve for negative commitment appropriations, and a reduction of about 135 mecu, £85 million, in payment appropriations for the structural funds and other non-obligatory expenditure. On the revenue side, it incorporated a surplus of 49·2 mecu, £31 million, available from the 1985 budget.

I have to tell the House that the new budget uses up all the available revenue within the £1·4 per cent. ceiling, together with the surplus carried forward from 1985. Compared with the 1985 budget, the increase in agriculture guarantee expenditure is 10·8 per cent. and in non-obligatory expenditure is 14·54 per cent. for commitment appropriations and 39·18 per cent. for payment appropriations.

Throughout the week's discussions in the Budget Council the United Kingdom's representatives made clear their profound and continuing concern about levels of expenditure in the new budget, and the implications for budget discipline. They underlined the United Kingdom's strong preference for retaining a significant margin of unused resources within the 1·4 per cent. ceiling. At the same time, they accepted that the increase of 1,100 mecu, £683 million in agricultural guarantee expenditure, which involves exceeding the budgetary discipline guideline limit by some 925 mecu, £575 million, could be justified by the exceptional circumstance of the abnormally rapid depreciation of the dollar since the original 1986 budget figures were prepared.

In spite of all our concerns, the new budget has many positive features from the United Kingdom's point of view. First, the United Kingdom's VAT rate, which would have been 0·69 per cent. on the Council's November budget and 0·73 per cent. on the Parliament's December budget, has been reduced to under 0·68 per cent. Secondly, we expect to receive a substantial share of the extra provision for the structural funds—well in excess of our VAT share.

Thirdly, in consequence of these changes, we expect the United Kingdom's net contribution to the 1986 budget to be significantly lower than was implied by the Council's or the Parliament's budgets of last autumn. Fourthly, the Council has succeeded in cutting the growth of commitment appropriations proposed by the Parliament, thus improving markedly the ratio between commitment and payment appropriations.

First, may I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us extra time in which to study the statement which I received at 11.1 am. I received an amendment to the statement at 11.20 am.

Having examined the statement, I wish to thank the Minister for his clear statement that, during the negotiations this week, the Government caved in completely. They protested, and then agreed to the complete breaking of budgetary discipline. Why are the main figures not present in the statement? After all, the Minister was involved in the negotiations for hour after hour. He was allegedly the mediator who brought the whole matter to a conclusion. Does he not know what figures he agreed? Why can he not report all those figures properly to the House instead of this absurdity?

The statement says that the 1·4 per cent. limit will be completely used up by the budget, plus a surplus carried forward from 1985. What is that surplus? What will the Minister do, since the harvest has not yet occurred and we do not know what dollar fluctuations will take place during the rest of the year—[Interruption.] Of course, we cannot know that. What will he do if the budget overruns the 1·4 per cent. limit? Will he and the Government return to the House later this year and ask for yet more money?

Why have the Government agreed to this massive increase in agricultural spending, quadrupling the breach of the budget discipline? Is it not incorrect to say that all this is simply due to fluctuations in the dollar? Is it not also due to the fact that the Agricultural Ministers refused to reduce farm prices sufficiently?

The Minister said nothing about overseas aid, yet press reports suggest that this was cut by at least £40 million. Does he not think that he should come clean about the

The statement refers to an increase of almost 40 per cent. in payment appropriations. What exactly are these for? Are they payments from the regional and social funds? Is this an effort to deal with the burdens of the past which the President of the Court of Auditors said totalled £9 billion by the end of 1984? Who will benefit from that? Will Britain or other countries benefit from it? Perhaps the Minister will tell us a great deal more about that.

Will the Minister not tell us exactly what is meant by the negative reserve that is already being described by European parliamentarians as a black hole into which, presumably, more and more of our own money will vanish? Does not the Minister's whole performance show that, far from being a mediator, he is being taken for a ride by those in Europe who are much more sophisticated in dealing with EC jiggery-pokery than he is?

This budget is short-lived. It cannot possibly last out the rest of 1986. It will lead to another financial crisis in 1987. Was the Minister not aware of the bitter resentment of the member states towards our rebate and will he not confirm that that rebate is tied to the 1·4 per cent. limit? If the 1·4 per cent. limit is breached so long before 1988, our abatement will also have to be renegotiated. Is he not aware of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House bitterly resent the fact that more and more money is going into the EC budget, primarily to be spent on featherbedding the farmers and on creating yet more obscene and wasteful food mountains, instead of being spent here on important public spending on schools and hospitals, a matter about which the hon. Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor) complained in our debate yesterday evening?

Finally, is the Minister not aware that his behaviour at Brussels during the last week means that next year the incoming Labour Government will have to sort out the whole EC budgetary mess and make sure that we have a decent deal with Europe?

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) made one comment and asked me 10 questions. Her comment was about the nature of the settlement that had been reached. The concern of everybody involved in this process during the past week has been to reach an agreement. Otherwise the Community would have been plunged into the regime of provisional twelfths, made worse by the fact that the base year upon which it would have been founded did not include Spain and Portugal. The only people to vote against the budget yesterday afternoon, and thus effectively in favour of the chaos that I have described, were the British Labour party and the Rainbow group.

To answer the hon. Lady's first question, I said that the main figures will be placed in the Official Report. There is a limit to how much data hon. Members can absorb in an oral statement. Secondly, the hon. Lady said that the 1·4 per cent. ceiling had been used up, together with the 1985 surplus, and she asked me about that surplus. The surplus is the audited and calculated surplus for the year 1984–85. That figure became available in June. Thus, it is possible for the Commission to make a statement about it at a meeting in early July.

As to the hon. Lady's question about the movement of agricultural expenditure and the pattern of the harvest, one of the reasons why the Budget Council, endorsed by the Parliament, increased agricultural expenditure by 185 mecu beyond the figure which the Commission had proposed was that in its figures the Commission had suggested that there was likely to be a required extra expenditure of 400 mecu which, in other circumstances, would have to be carried forward to a subsequent year. The Budget Council and the Parliament agreed that it was prudent to make an additional provision for the current year.

The hon. Lady asked me about budget discipline, in particular as it relates to agriculture. She implied that the behaviour of the dollar—I am surprised that she has not remarked upon the behaviour of the dollar in terms of the financial markets and its effect on agricultural prices—meant that this was yet another easy settlement for farmers. I do not know how many farmers the hon. Lady has in her Thurrock constituency but the farming community regard it, on the whole, as a tough settlement.

As to overseas aid, it is perfectly true that at an earlier stage in the proceedings this week the overseas aid figures were reduced by the Budget Council and that the Labour MEPs at Strasbourg referred to that. That figure has been restored in the final settlement. I am mildly surprised that the hon. Lady's Strasbourg colleagues had not let her know.

The hon. Lady's next question related to the increase in payment appropriations of nearly 40 per cent. She asked whether they were in the structural funds, to which the answer is yes. Other non-obligatory expenditure that is outside the structural funds is also included. The hon. Lady asked whether that expenditure related to past costs and who would benefit from it. The reason for the large increase in the payment appropriations is substantially because of the enlargement of the Community by the arrival of Spain and Portugal. I acknowledge that in these figures there is an element of past costs. The Commission has recommended that it is sensible to reduce the heavy overhang of commitments that is brought forward each year. As to who benefits, I said in my statement that the United Kingdom is likely to be a substantial beneficiary from that element in the change.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the negative reserve. I acknowledge that the negative reserve is an innovative device. The negative reserve entered the negotiations at around midnight on Wednesday night because the Parliament insisted that there should not be yet a further increase in commitment appropriations which did not have payments attached to them —exactly the issue that has given rise to the problem of past costs. However, the Budget Council said that it was impossible at that stage of the night, if it was to vote on the business the following day, for it to be able to determine what non-compulsory expenditure it should shift among that which lay within its competence so to do. This device was arranged so that it would have a slightly longer period in which to effect that switch.

The hon. Lady suggested that I had not served as a mediator. I do not know whether mediator is a term of abuse. All I know is that we secured an agreement between the Budget Council and the Parliament and that as a consequence the Community has not been plunged into the chaos of provisional twelfths.

The hon. Lady referred to bitter resentment in the House—this was the first of her "finallys"—and asked about the relationship of the 1·4 per cent. to the abatement. She has misunderstood the process. The relationship in the Fontainebleau agreement between the abatement and the 1·4 per cent. ceiling is favourable to the United Kingdom, in that the 1·4 per cent. ceiling cannot be negotiated without our agreement, in particular our agreement on any other abatement arrangements.

The hon. Lady's second "finally" related to featherbedding farmers, but I hope that I have already responded to that point. The hon. Lady's third "finally" referred to what, in the unlikely contingency of a Labour Government being returned to office, they would do. In all the years that a Labour Government had responsibility for these affairs they never negotiated a sure instrument such as the abatement that we now enjoy.

rose—

Order. I understand the concern about this matter, but I have to take into account the point of order of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall allow questions to continue until five past twelve, and then we must move on.

To put matters into plain English, which we do not always use when talking about EC affairs, while congratulating my hon. Friend upon what is reported as his outstanding chairmanship, now that he is back in the United Kingdom will he take time to read yesterday's debates in which he will see that deep and sincere anxiety was expressed in all quarters of the House about the apparently careless and prompt way in which solemn assurances given to British Members of Parliament have been breached?

There is no budgetary discipline. Agriculture expenditure is out of control and the additional funds voted, which were supposed to last for many years, have run out in less than a year of the new budgetary discipline. Is my hon. Friend aware that if he had made that appalling statement yesterday, before our debate, it is likely that the budget proposals would not have been carried by the House, as they should not have been?

Finally, to use that word once, and once only, will my hon. Friend give us his word, which I would trust, that we shall have no further proposals for increased contributions to the European Community until such time as the promises already solemnly made to us are adhered to?

I have already had the considerable pleasure of reading the account in Hansard of yesterday's debate, and it appears to have been a thoroughly vigorous occasion. My right hon. Friend said a number of things. The business of the House is no business of mine, but that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, were we to have a debate, I should look forward to it, because we would be able to go into these matters in rather more detail.

Technically, the business of the House yesterday related to Estimates rather than the budget, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend understands that position.

As to his final question, I have long been conscious of the hazards of absolutely definitive negatives. I remember somebody who once used the word "never" at the Dispatch Box. I respond to my right hon. Friend in the spirit of his question.

The Minister deserves congratulations on piloting through the adoption of the budget. Is not the attempt to portray every negotiation as a triumph for Britain unreal and counter-productive? Should not the concept of general Community interest, in which we share, be developed? In this connection, is he aware that it is strange that all the so-called positive features that he listed at the end of his statement seemed to be about the reduction of expenditure in job-creating areas? Is he aware that there is a need for a significant increase in expenditure in cost-productive sectors such as the structural funds, regional and social, research and development and overseas aid? Is he able to give us the figures, plus or minus, in regard to these funds?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his congratulations. Inevitably, one was asked elsewhere to comment in the margins of the meeting about the negotiations. I sought to convey that it has been a satisfactory conclusion in the sense that we have saved the Community from the chaos of a regime of provisional twelfths that would have been imposed for the next two or three months.

The hon. Member asked me about expenditure, not only in the structural funds but in other non-obligatory expenditure. I make it clear that any references to reduction of the non-obligatory expenditure that may have occurred earlier in the week were premature, as I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald).

There were significant achievements in this budget. One was that other member states joined the United Kingdom in its belief that it was hazardous to push up commitment appropriations if we were not similarly providing resources with which to execute them. Another was that, as a result of conciliation, the Parliament also withdrew its request for further commitment appropriations in the structural funds.

My hon. Friend deserves full congratulations on the striking achievement of the new budget agreement for 1986 within 10 days of the commencement of the British presidency. He chaired his meetings with success, combining proper control over the budget with the need to develop the Community budget in the future, not only in 1986. Should he not ignore the semi-hysteria and the whingeing and whining of the Official Opposition and some of our hon. Friends? Does it not result from their dislike of the foreigners involved in the Community budget process, their unwillingness to be full members of the Community and their failure to recognise that the Community budget is much more modest for most of the member states, whose total financial budget deficits are five or six times the size of the Community budget?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words.

The Minister referred to the sure instrument of the rebate, but does he not agree that now that it is hitting 1·4 per cent., under the Fontainebleau agreement, the Commission is obliged to review matters and Her Majesty's Government are committed to negotiations that could raise it to 1·6 per cent.? The Minister mentioned the breach of discipline. Of the figures that he gave, it appears that the breach is now by a multiple of four. If that is not correct, what are the figures? He said that the VAT take is reduced, but does he not agree that the actual amount of our VAT take that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to send to Brussels is much higher? Is it not around 12 to 15 per cent. before the rebate? Will he give the figure that it is before the rebate for 1986?

When does he expect to lay in the Vote Office a full memorandum on all these matters? When he does so, will he make sure that it includes figures comparable to those of the sixth report of the Scrutiny Committee HC 78-vi of 1983–84?

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the 1·4 per cent. ceiling and the negotiation of the rebate. I expressed confidence on behalf of the Government that 1·4 per cent. will be sufficient to maintain the needs and expenditure of the Community, but it is the case that the Commission has a responsibility to bring forward an exnovo review. It has said that it is likely to do that before the end of this year. That will be a matter for debate during 1987. I repeat that we cannot move from a 1·4 per cent. ceiling without the renegotiation of the United Kingdom abatement.

As to the hon. Gentleman's question about the VAT take, to use his phrase, I acknowledge that the amount that passes over before the abatement is higher. As to the question of comparable figures, we shall not manage to give them in the figures that go in the Official Report with the statement, but I shall do my best to make sure that they are made available.

Does my hon. Friend's statement not confirm the fears expressed last year that the budgetary restraint agreement is just a sick joke? Would not directors of a public company who used the money entrusted to them in such a profligate fashion be put in prison? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that this year's extraordinary overspend should be clawed back next year, as provided for specifically in the so-called binding agreement of December 1984? How on earth do my hon. Friend and his colleagues expect to avoid a major crisis in the 1987 budget?

I appreciate that there may be disagreement between the Government and some of my hon. Friends on the precise significance of the exceptional fall in the dollar on agricultural prices, but it is a common cause among the members states involved in these matters in Brussels and Strasbourg that it is an exceptional issue.

My hon. Friend correctly referred to the Fontainebleau agreement. The United Kingdom abatement and the sureness of that instrument are as important an element in that agreement as is the reference to budget discipline. That instrument has remained wholly firm.

While every pressure is exercised on my colleagues in the Council of Agriculture Ministers to reduce their expenditure to compensate for rises elsewhere in the budget, it would be unreasonable to expect that in 1987 we shall be able to claw back the considerable extra expenditure that has flowed out as a result of the performance of the dollar.

Does the Minister of State recollect that at every stage in the process by which this House obtained control over taxation and thus over the government of the country it acted in excess of its then legal and constitutional powers? Is it not clear that, as was predictable and predicted, a directly elected assembly armed with the power to reject the budget and acting in collusion with the Commission will always be able to impose its will upon Her Majesty's Government and upon this House?

The central issue in the court case that the Council of Ministers brought against the European Parliament for its actions last December was to establish beyond peradventure the principle that the Parliament could not exceed the powers available to it. I am delighted to say that in its judgment on July 3 the European Court of Justice entirely endorsed that view.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts overnight. Could he put an exact figure on the net contribution now compared to the budgets last autumn? Secondly, can he say why the situation is allowed to persist where there is a large discrepancy between the commitments made in the Community budget and the payments? Surely the time is long overdue to bring those two elements firmly into line?

In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, I have to tell him that the reduction in the United Kingdom's net contribution between the budgets of last autumn and the budget approved by the European Parliament yesterday is of the order of £250 million. My hon. Friend asked about commitments and payments. As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, significant progress has been made this year in getting away from what I shall call the easy cosmetics of either Parliament or Ministers voting for increases in commitment appropriations without providing any of the resources to discharge them. As a consequence of that, we have unused commitments overhanging the budget from year to year. If hon. Members look at the figure presented this year, they will see that there has been a most satisfactory redressing of that balance.

Will the Minister note that we are sick to death of this continual and increasing overspending in the EC? There is a lot of talk about financial discipline, but does he not realise that there is no financial discipline? There never was and any such formula as he had has completely collapsed. We have noted his weasel words in refusing to answer the question about whether he will come back for further money for the EC. He has also spoken about his so-called successes. We need successes like that like we need a hole in the head.

I have to assume from the hon. Gentleman's last remark that he sides with the Members of the British Labour party who yesterday voted against that budget because they wished to see chaos in the affairs of the Community over the next three months.

What have we got now?

The hon. Gentleman's constituents may not be beneficiaries of some of the funds that flow from Brussels, but other hon. Members in the House would have seen that transfer of resources into their constituencies reduced if the Community had been put on a regime of provisional twelfths. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about overspending and draw to his attention the fact that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary vividly made clear the Government's view that it would be much more desirable to have a margin in this budget below the 1·4 per cent. ceiling.

Is it not the principle of the Government that supply and demand should determine prices? How can we constantly accommodate increases in agricultural expenditure without reference to world circumstances and costs, especially bearing in mind that the common agricultural policy now puts a burden of £8 to £9 a week on every family in Britain? That is regressive taxation of the worst sort. Will the Government now refer the CAP to the European Court as being in breach of the original treaty of Rome in that it does not serve the interests of the consumer?

That seems in the first instance to be more precisely a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Is it true that the representatives of the other nation states are expressing increasing resentment at the prospect of the continuance of our abatement? Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that our abatement will continue for at least as long as the system of budgetary control?

I can assure my hon. Friend that during the fairly prolonged deliberations in which I participated in Brussels and Strasbourg, except at the level of what I shall describe as marginal joviality, there was no suggestion by any of the member states, or indeed by the European Parliament, that our abatement should be interfered with.

I had been speaking about neighbourhood policing in Brixton and I said that it had two legs. One leg is the community police consultative committee, about which I spoke and about which other hon. Members have spoken. The other leg is a trial system that is taking place in Brixton, the establishment of four sector working parties over which the inspector responsible for each of the four areas in Brixton presides. The working parties have two meetings a month to which are invited on a permanent basis local business men, tenants' associations, church representatives, youth club leaders, schools and so on. They are like mini police-community consultative groups and are working well.

I said that I was optimistic at the way things are working out. I say that again because my optimism is based on the efforts of the police and the excellent backup that the police are receiving from the Government. Perhaps most important, there is increasing understanding and good will from the public about the role of the police. I hope that this will increase and prosper.

Time and again Government Members and the Home Secretary have spoken about events in Wapping as justification for the efforts and the reorganisation which the Home Secretary hopes to bring about within the Metropolitan police. A point often ignored about the Wapping situation is that the whole of it is premeditated. That point seems to be lost on Government Members. The development at Wapping was purposely designed by the management of News International. The character and position of the building was so designed, the defences and the barbed wire and all the things around the building and the armoured vehicles were all planned in the knowledge that the police would be doing what they are now doing at Wapping as soon as the building was occupied and newspapers began to be printed there. The whole thing was, in that sense, premeditated and we should not lose sight of that.

Another point to which Government Members referred two or three times was street politics. They talked about protesters taking to the streets and called upon the Labour party to use its influence to persuade organisations not to use the street for the purpose of protests. By their very nature, street protests take place because such groups are deliberately excluded from the decision-making process. Street protests then become part of the democratic network. Under certain circumstances, many of us may have reservations and some regrets, and I certainly reject violence as an integral part of street demonstrations—it has serious limitations and is counter-productive—but Conservative Members should recognise that street politics is a necessary part of the means whereby people participate in the democratic process.

Conservative Members talk about the cost of the police force. No Labour Member complains about that. Our complaint is about the lack of accountability. The police force happens to be one part of the public sector that has the least accountability. Indeed the methods used by the police are subject to less accountability than those of the Army or the Ministry of Defence and all those other Departments which are subject to ministerial control. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State may have direct responsibility, together with the Receiver of the Metropolitan police, but their combined efforts amount to less accountability than the Ministry of Defence has over the Army; that is the basis of our complaint.

Conservative Members say that London has a great police force, and of course it has. But it also has the most expensive police force anywhere in the world. It now costs £1,000 million a year. If we add to that the cost of private police and private security in London, we must have the most expensive security system anywhere in the world. Some estimates have been made that security in London is topping £1,500 million a year and, looking at the cost of some of the private security systems, it may be much more than that.

I know no one in the Labour party who is anti-police. No one has made general criticisms that could be summarised as representing an anti-police view. Our overall belief is that the police force is as essential as the education system. It is as essential as any other part of local authority work. What we ask is that the police force be treated in the same way and be subject to the same accountability; the same process of democracy. We are not anti-police in any way.

Many comments have been made about Wapping and the two highest paid groups of workers in Britain. Fleet street is identified as one of the highest paid groups of employees anywhere in the country. But the police now top that and we make no complaint about that. The fact that a constable, with rent allowances, overtime and the other bits and pieces, is in the £20,000 a year bracket—more than that in some cases—

More than a Member of Parliament.

Yes, but Members of Parliament are underpaid.

We make no complaint about the police constable who earns about £20,000 a year. We make no complaint about police inspectors earning more than the average headmaster of a big comprehensive school. That is necessary. The fact that there are no dissenting voices on the Labour Benches will, I hope, prove to the Minister that that is the collective view of the Opposition.

We have had many reports, from White Papers to the recent plethora of reports from Scotland Yard, the Home Office, Lord Scarman and Lord Gifford. There is now a tendancy in the Government's reports towards militarisation of the police and about that we do complain. Jokes are made. It is said that the difference between the police and the armed forces is that the armed forces have fighter aircraft. That is the only piece of equipment that the police do not possess.

They have helicopters.

They have helicopters, but they are not yet armed. They are fitted with lighting equipment with which they can illuminate whole areas at night and that will be part of their techniques. [Interruption.] But they do not quite have the fighter aircraft. None the less, there is a tendancy towards militarisation, and we have proof of that. The Minister shares the view, along with the Home Secretary and Sir Kenneth Newman, that in London there should be a force of about 7,000 officers who are at all times ready and on call for public disorder that may break out anywhere and that they should be sufficiently mobile to be moved about. In other words, there is a desire to emulate what happens in France, whose police reserve is highly militarised. That is the idea that is now coming through in all the reports and papers and it reflects the thinking in the leadership of the Metropolitan police.

I hope that that will not proceed. I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will resist that and that the Government will not go in that direction, but rather that they will start to look at other methods. I hope that they will not see it as their most essential work. Public disorder is not the first priority for the police. Therefore, the strategy should not be based upon the need to deal with occasions of public disorder. That should be low in their priorities.

The Government complain that local authorities in London with Labour majorities do not participate in consultative committees. But the police do not participate in local authority sub-committees. They refuse to do so. In fact, the Home Secretary's recommendation is to dissuade the police from participating in any discussions which are organised by police sub-committees set up by local authorities. There is a two-way negative attitude.

The only point that I make about that is that consultative committees and local authority police sub-committees have an entirely different function which has little to do with good relations, as the Home Secretary and the Minister claim. Their contribution towards better relationships with the police is evidenced by their statutory obligations on consultative committees and their willingness to encourage participation. Good public relations are not about that. Confidence is built by the practice on the ground. It is not possible to translate the work of consultative committees, or any committee for that matter, into better public relations. That job must of necessity be done by the police through their practices and behaviour when dealing with the public. That is the basis of the relationship and there are no short cuts.

I welcome the recognition that is now beginning to be seen, that racialism in the police must once and for all be ended. Efforts are being made, in the management of the police and in the force itself, to start to eradicate that aspect that has bedevilled their work for so long.

I should like perhaps to correct a few misunderstandings about public relations as they affect Tottenham, and Broadwater Farm. I can remember when Broadwater Farm was a green site. I and others in London then made the mistake of talking about the need to provide, above all, accommodation. At the time, not many years ago 24 per cent. of families in Tottenham lived in appalling housing conditions and would have to go through someone else's accommodation to reach the lavatory. I then said that our most important priority should be to build accommodation that had hot water and decent toilet and bathroom facilities. I also believed that people should have their own front doors. We set about that job, and Broadwater Farm was a latter-day part of that whole process of high-rise developments and deck-access planning.

Whether it is the Scarman or Gifford report, or any other, reports seem to feed off one another. For example, I do not recognise the place that I know from some of the stuff that has been written about it. Broadwater Farm is below the level of the roads round the estate. Therefore, those who say that burning vehicles and so on were rolled into the police have got their facts wrong, because they would have had to be pushed pretty hard up inclines. As I understand the theory of motion, things do not roll uphill, yet that is what is implied in some of the reports.

It is important to recognise that Broadwater Farm was deliberately designed as a self-contained community. However, it has since been described as some sort of Fagin's kitchen or snake pit that attracts all the undesirable elements, particularly from among the black community. It so happens that, because of the very nature of events in Tottenham, a large proportion of the tenants are black. Young people from the area go there to meet their friends, because it a natural meeting place. It was designed as a centre for the community. Moreover, between 50 and 60 per cent. of our young black people are unemployed, and so black youngsters tend to gravitate quite naturally towards that communal centre.

Sociologists develop all sorts of complicated theories, but the simple answer is that those young people are looking for some sort of community, and tend to gravitate towards Broadwater Farm. I hope that I have put an end to that nonsense of it being some sort of Fagin's kitchen. It is a natural meeting place, and that is why some of these things have happened.

We have all read some of the highly inaccurate and dramatised reports. Indeed, the day before yesterday, I met some Americans who said that Broadwater Farm was probably more widely known throughout the world than the problems of Harlem or of the east side of New York. It has probably received more publicity than other areas with problems, such as Hong Kong. We have had cliches by the bucketful about it.

The behaviour of the police has led to hostility between young black people and the police. The whole idea of stop and search was based on the perhaps inherent thinking of the police. I am generalising, but the police and other sections of our society tend to see black people as lesser mortals. The police like to demonstrate their superiority, so that they can exercise their authority and control over a community. That is the reason for much of the behaviour in question. The police seem to believe that the best policing can be achieved by humiliating sections of the community. Stop and search goes on on a massive scale in north London and it is a humiliating business.

In public places and on crowded thoroughfares, young people are asked to put their hands against the wall, and are then searched and subjected to the most humiliating performance. That naturally leads to hostility, especially when young black people know that it is they who will be subjected to it, and that the chance of it happening to young white people is almost non-existent.

I should like the House to understand the whole business of stop and search, and the blanket campaign of house searching. Nowhere else would the police practise the blanket searching of homes, on an almost house-to-house basis. They turn places upside down. Sometimes they smash down the door and sometimes they use a key. Sometimes they knock and ask permission to enter. But they ignore the normal decencies.

Stop and search is deliberately humiliating, but the disadvantages resulting from those house searches are far more damaging than any benefits that may accrue to the police. That is the balance that must be considered. I appeal to the Minister to tell Scotland Yard's management that house searching and stop and search are the most damaging aspects of police activity. If the police want decent public relations, they should only use these methods as a last resort. Everything else must first be tried. The police should not just go trawling for information by searching through private possessions, turning over the most personal of belongings, and damaging stuff without any apology. By doing that, they are seriously damaging public relations. Such methods should be the last resort of the police. Nothing will improve until the police understand the consequences of their actions.

That is the backdrop to the relationship between young black people and the police. The benefits of house-to-house searching and the stopping and searching of young blacks is limited. The humiliating practices that are used by the police produce sullen animosity among young black people, and make it impossible for the police to be helped by the community. The Home Secretary has revealed his innermost thoughts about police recruitment—he has spoken of the difficulties to complete ethnic recruitment that would produce a balanced force in London numbers —and he knows what the position is.

Many supporters of the Government use the term "dropouts" when talking about young black people. These people are throwouts. They are certainly not dropouts. Society has rejected them; they have not rejected society. The Government have no right to talk about young black people being drop-outs. These are matters that we must understand if we are to overcome the resentment that produces hostility between black people and the police. We shall make progress in the building of confidence only if we understand the social implications.

The police must understand that it is their behaviour which prevents progress being made in the establishment of confidence. That is the lesson of Broadwater Farm. I hope that we shall put recent events behind us and return to some state of normality in the area. It is only the Minister of State who can ensure that that happens. He must sent the message down the line that we want a return to normality. The Tottenham people will respond because they want good policing. Like all others, they want the support of the police force. They suffer the same problems as anyone else and they will respond if normality returns to the area and the vanloads of policemen are taken away from the peripheral parts of the estate so that they are not seen to be present day in and day out, watching the estate for hours on end. If normality returns, the Minister will see the community's response.

Let us have some confidence in the community, and then let us expect the community to have some confidence in the police. The progress can begin if we learn the real lessons of the relationship between the community and the police, and understand the factors that led to everything going wrong. We could talk for a long time about some of the problems that have been set out in various reports. We have had the Scarman and Gifford reports, as well as the reports that the police have produced. The Metropolitan police must rid themselves of the fixed idea that law and order is exclusively dealing with public disorder. It is about a very different police relationship which is uppermost in the minds of the people. If that can be understood, we shall make some progress.

rose—

I should remind the House that only two hours remain and more than a dozen Back Benchers wish to catch my eye as well as those on the two Front Benches who will wish to reply to the debate.

On Wednesday there was a large advertisement in the London Standard seeking to attract recruits for London's 28 Territorial Army units. The advertisement reminded potential recruits that if they joined one of the 28 units they would have a clear and definite role in Britain's defence strategy. They were reminded also that the starting pay for a part-time recruit in London's TA would be £850 a year. I am not surprised that recruits are flocking to join London's 28 TA units, and that overall strength now stands at more than 10,000 men and women.

Compare that with the sorry state of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary, as recorded on page 26 of the Commissioner's admirable report. The strength of London's TA is 10,000 and growing but the special constabulary has a mere 1,560 officers, and is shrinking. Why should the disparity be so great? The Territorial Army and the special constabulary are looking for the same sort of fit, intelligent, and public-spirited young person who wants something more than a quiet life. The Territorial Army's role with the British Army of the Rhine is important, but helping to deter crime and protect our neighbours is also important.

It is discouraging that the decrease occurs at a time when we have a commissioner who is exceptionally keen on community involvement. He has set up a plethora of consultative panels and advisory groups. The development of neighbourhood watch schemes is beginning to make a real contribution. In my area, in 1985, home burglaries decreased by 22 per cent. If special constables are to languish under Sir Kenneth Newman's regime, something must be wrong.

We could use six times as many special constables in London as there are at present. If it is right to have 10,000 reserve soldiers in London, it makes even more sense to have more than 10,000 reserve policemen. It is clear that, under the present regime, we have no chance of getting them. I ask the Home Secretary to set up a wide-ranging review into the special constabulary in London and throughout the country. The structure, remuneration and role of the special constabulary is not right. If the Home Secretary will not introduce such an inquiry, I hope that the Select Committee on Home Affairs will take up the matter.

It is worth remembering that the special constabulary provides important links with the ethnic community. The commissioner's report reminds us that 7·5 per cent. of the London Special Constabulary is drawn from Afro-West Indian and Asian communities—a far higher proportion than in the regular force.

After the riots in Tottenham and Brixton, the doctrines associated with the name of Lord Scarman have come under critical scrutiny. If there has to be a clash between the softly, softly approach and those who would carry a big stick, I must side unreservedly with those who are in favour of introducing the longer baton. However, longer batons and better shields are not the complete solution to the policing problem. There must be every sort of contact — official and unofficial, orthodox and unorthodox— between the Metropolitan police and the West Indian community. I believe that the specials have an important role to play in this.

Appendix 5XV lists the honours and awards given to the Metropolitan police during 1985. I note with pleasure, and some surprise, that the commissioner has become a Grand Officer of the Order of the Lion of Malawi. There are eight Queen's medals for distinguished service. There are, very properly, six awards of the Victorian order or medal for personal service to the royal family. Last year, officers of the Metropolitan police received one CBE, two OBEs, three MBEs and 14 British Empire medals. An ordinary Civil Service Department, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would consider that a pretty poor crop of honours in a wet year; yet we expect much more from our police force than our ordinary Civil Service. The police deserve our support and more public recognition.

The debate takes place against a background of far too high a level of crime, burglary, vandalism, robbery and assault in the metropolitan area. Although in my area of Islington there was a small reduction in reported crime in 1985, it was too small and came too late. That reduction is set against a continuing increase in other forms of crime and the fears of many people, especially in inner London.

Appendix 2 to the recently published report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan police contains a remarkable and extremely worrying breakdown of police time. A staggering 33 per cent. of police time appears to be spent off duty on annual and weekly leave, time off, bank holidays, and so on. Although police officers are clearly entitled to proper holidays and leave entitlement, 33 per cent. of their duty time is a staggering, inexplicable percentage.

It is especially worrying when compared with the proportion of time spent on street duties, which include not only foot patrols and home beats but car beats. Street duties take up only 29 per cent. of the time of police constables, which is far too low a percentage. The most important job that a police constable can possibly do is patrolling the streets on foot in uniform, making many London residents feel more secure, safer and less fearful about the level of crime. The police should be doing that. I am concerned that the figures in the report do not give us much confidence that those tasks are a major priority in the police force.

Good policing depends on the police not only being visible on our streets and estates but having the confidence of the community which they are there to serve. The present lack of accountability and democracy in the control of the Metropolitan police is of great concern. I serve with pleasure and pride on the Islington police consultative committee, as do members of the local authority. That forum enables a discussion, which is often useful, to take place with the police. It is no substitute for the sort of democratic control which ought to be exercised over the general policing priorities of London. That is not available to the people of London at the moment other than in a hasty and rushed debate of this kind in the House, which really offers no genuine control or accountability.

It is not only on that wider level that accountability is required; it is on a much smaller scale as well. An estate in my constituency, the Barnsbury estate, had for many years been subject to a lot of vandalism, a number of teenage gangs roaming the estate and a fear of crime among the tenants. Because of an initiative from the tenants themselves, they sat down, with local beat officers, the local police commander and representatives of the local council, and together they decided on the policing priorities for the area and on measures to improve crime prevention on the estate.

The result has been remarkable. People feel much safer on the Barnsbury estate than they did, not just because of the policing measures that have been undertaken, but because they feel that they have some degree of say in how their estate is being policed through the close consultation that is taking place. If that sort of consultation and democratic participation can happen on a small scale at estate level, surely it is a principle which can be expanded to cover wide communities. The Commissioner said, in a letter to The Guardian yesterday, how much importance he attributed to consultation, public involvement and the involvement of residents in the policing of their area. I am pleased that he pays tribute to that principle. I only wish that we saw a lot more of it in the structure of the Metropolitan police as a whole and on the streets at neighbourhood and estate level.

Part of the confidence which is necessary between a police force and the residents that it serves is a feeling that when things go wrong complaints can efficiently and effectively be sorted out. The House will recall that earlier this year there was considerable publicity about a particular incident in 1983 when five youngsters, my constituents, were assaulted as they were coming home near the Holloway road from a summer fair. I am pleased to note that progress is now being made in following up that incident. Committal proceedings of five officers of the Metropolitan police were held last week on that matter. I cannot comment further because of the sub judice rules of the House, but there is an important point to be made. I deeply regret that it was necessary to raise such an enormous public fuss before the matter was properly, effectively and efficiently investigated.

It is regrettable that there was need for such a fuss not only before the matter was investigated, but before the police could be induced to drop their deliberate cover-up of the offenders and their refusal to make known what they knew about the identity of the offenders.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is the point I was about to make.

One of the major problems with the present system of investigating complaints about the conduct of police officers is that the body which does the investigating, not the body that decides to launch the investigation—the Police Complaints Authority — is almost entirely composed of serving police officers. Until we have a completely independent police complaints procedure the public will be badly served. They will have less confidence than they should about whether genuine complaints about particular activities of particular police officers will be properly and fully followed up.

There is one even more general point to be made. Far and away the best service that can be done for the people of London in the issues of crime and law and order is to improve dramatically the provision of crime prevention. The balance of priorities that the Government have had in that respect over the past six years makes grim reading. The forces of control—the police, the courts, and the mopping-up operation after the crime has occurred—have devoted an increase in funding of about 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. in real terms to those operations. What has happened to the forces of prevention—the provision of good housing and better lit streets, and safer estates, with entryphones, better design, new housing and safer doors? Those are the things that people desperately want, to prevent crime in their areas.

Provision for housing expenditure by local authorities has been cut by 70 per cent. in real terms in the past five years. That is the sort of priority that the Government attach to crime prevention. No amount of seminars at 10 Downing street with the Prime Minister, a few fiddles on insurance polices and perhaps a new lock for car doors, no amount of such discussion on the margin, will make a real difference to the realities of the lack of crime prevention policy under this Government. It is the basic issues of housing, street lighting, safe streets and neighbourhoods that people are desperately concerned about in London. I fear that they are not getting those things from the Government.

I intend to make a brief speech because I regret that I shall not be able to stay for the duration of the debate, owing to a prior engagement.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and all his senior officers have been doing a good job over the recent period covered in the report against the background of a difficult situation. We should pay tribute to them. The force goal set by the Commissioner for 1986–88 seems to be about right, and has the balance about right. The Commissioner was correct to say that a high priority should be given to the reduction of criminal opportunities via crime prevention of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), via public involvement, and via the neighbourhood watch schemes, of which there are an agreeably large number in my area of Wallington.

All the points that have been made about the importance of street patrols need to be underlined, as they were in paragraph 40 of the Commissioner's report. They are demonstrably a good way of allaying public fear, and public fear lies at the heart of the general unease about law and order.

The Commissioner was right to stress the priority to be given to the detection of specified offences. That is necessary, because it is one of the most cost-effective ways of deploying the police service, which will never be adequately staffed for all the tasks placed on it. The more minor but all too frequent offence of criminal damage needs to be given higher priority than is sometimes the case. I know that sometimes it is not as dramatic or traumatic as grievous offences such as those connected with robbery, murder, homicide and so on. None the less, it is a matter of considerable concern to constituents. It is worth paying increased attention to that.

From a cost-effective point of view, the evidence suggests that, in places where the police concentrate on organised crime, they can make a dramatic difference to the figures. It has been drawn to my attention by senior police officers that, for example, by concentrating on one criminal firm and eventually managing, through a process of enhanced detection and effort, to nail that firm, one sees the result in a fall, which is sometimes dramatic, in offences in that category in the subsequent period. If we measure such things in terms of clear-up rates and numbers of offences, we see that a concentration of resources on organised crime is absolutely necessary.

Thirdly, and more importantly, the force must use the manpower and resources at its disposal to the maximum efficiency. I should like the Metropolitan police to reach their full establishment because it is still slightly below the agreed level.

The problems of policing the capital were well set out in paragraph 58 of the Commissioner's report. Not enough police are allocated to cover the various aspects of policing in London to give the public confidence. I think of the rising crime figures and just as much of the factors which we have already covered by our debate, such as public disorder and time off for in-service training. That is vital as the needs change. I think also of the problems caused by sick leave. The figures for sick leave and holidays are remarkable.

We should lay greater stress on the deployment of police officers on street duty. We should make a determined effort to push up the proportion of on-duty officers engaged in such tasks so that the public feel reassured and so that the police achieve more effective results.

There is no doubt that a contribution can be made to the better use of resources by continuing civilianisation and, at the margin, by competitive tendering and by contracting out some services.

Huge problems remain for the Metropolitan police because of the cash limits system—I am tempted to say, the "quaint" cash limits system — and annuality. Recently, police pay was negotiated and a 7·5 per cent. increase was settled. At that time, the Treasury was set on a limit of 4 per cent. A total of 80 per cent. of Metropolitan police costs is for manpower. That causes enormous problems, even with maximum efficiency within the police service.

An illustration can be given of the difficulties caused by the Treasury's inflexible approach. Vital support can be given to officers in uniform by the professional, technical and scientific grades in the police service. They are caught in arrangements which do not allow the police service to bid differentially for such services, so people are lost to the service or are not attracted to it in sufficient numbers. That was made clear in a report published as long ago as 1984. The Home Office would do well to consider what can be done to rectify that.

My constituency falls within the Epsom police division. I pay tribute to the local divisional report by Chief Superintendent Sellar and his colleagues. They are right to give priority to better police intelligence and information. They could be helped by the use of a microcomputer and it is hoped to install that device in the near future.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that crime prevention is of major importance. The neighbourhood watch schemes have an important role. In my area, such schemes increased from six in April 1984 to 86 in December 1985.

A greater effort is needed to combat the drug menace. It is disturbing to discover that the drug menace is not confined to the core of the inner city. One might have associated it with Piccadilly circus, but it is spreading alarmingly to the suburbs. The police are right to give it high priority. The problem must be dealt with not only in an enforcement context, but in an educational context. Advertising must be frank and straightforward and the publicity material in schools, pubs and clubs must be effective.

My final point on the divisional report is the great need for the police to be seen to be responding to the public's topical concerns. The public may not always be concerned about the same things as the gurus at Scotland Yard. Therefore, it is important for the latter to remember that. It is interesting that some of the matters that worry my constituents most are not the most serious crimes and, happily, not those reflected most in the criminal figures. They include vandalism, hooliganism and the alarming truancy rates in our inner cities, which in the worst cases are running at 30 per cent. or more. They worry about matters as prosaic as dangerous illegal parking. I hope that senior police officers will give sufficient attention to those matters which cause disproportionate concern to ordinary people.

The Government's approach in this important area must be firmly based on three priorities: on providing resources for more police, which is still necessary in the Metropolitan police force; to provide political support for more effective policing of the sort that I mentioned; and on providing the appropriate legislative framework —I have not had time to develop this today— to give the courts a range of judicial penalties for the convicted. In that context, I look forward to the Government's next instalment of criminal justice legislation which was foreshadowed in the recent White Paper.

I shall comment in a moment on something said earlier by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).

The Home Secretary, in an opening speech made in his usual laid-back style, did not get the balance right between concern and complacency. It was a little silly of him to say that Londoners are better off than the people of New York. That is rather like saying that we should not worry about the fact that we have malaria, because we have not got AIDS. The traditions, the mode of life and the availability of firearms makes the problem in New York very different from that in London. New York is the only city in the world where a bank robber is likely to be mugged on the way to his getaway car. Its circumstances are different from those in London.

During his weighty speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) contended that we are not using the Metropolitan police to the best possible effect because the Commissioner has not got right the relative priorities of the prevention and detection of crime and the use of the police in respect of public order. When my right hon. Friend said that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington intervened to say that the Commissioner is bound to provide police officers for that purpose. My right hon. Friend queried that and asked whether we should reconsider the proposition, instead of taking it for granted.

I can illustrate that point by recounting what I witnessed. It is topical, because it happened less than 24 hours ago. At two o'clock yesterday afternoon, I went to a green near the London hospital, Mile End, where there was an assembly—a not very large demonstration—in support of the gynaecologist Wendy Savage, about whom we have all read in the past day or two. On that green there were no more than a dozen or so men, but 200 or 300 women, a large proportion of whom were pushing baby buggies with small children in them. There were about 100 other walking children. Round the green were some senior police officers, several police officers on motor cycles and two coaches full of police officers.

Was there a helicopter as well?

No, there was no helicopter, but just down the road there was a riot control vehicle. I looked at these women with their little kids and then went to the officer in charge and said, "I don't think you've got enough of a police presence to deal with this dangerous mob and all the highly armed thugs that I see before me." He said, "Well, I've got 38 officers and I am deploying only 15 of them." However, I counted them and there were more police officers there than that.

So off we set. When we arrived at the London hospital, Whitechapel, which was the destination of those who were to hand in the letter, I left the march and stood on the pavement — I say this in all friendliness, not in a contumacious spirit; the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington could have been there—and all these people, nearly all of whom were women, went by carrying their home-made, handwritten placards.

Right at the end of the march there was a particular group of women who had been patients of Wendy Savage. She had delivered their babies. This fairly large group of women were pushing baby buggies with the aforesaid babies in them and immediately behind them, at the end of the procession, came a coachful of police officers. To my knowledge, the police officers had been sitting in that coach for several hours and had never left it.

Does the Minister of State think that that is an efficient use of police manpower? It might be a good way of providing a little overtime money for them. They all became used to earning a lot of overtime money during the miners' strike and they have to keep up with mortgages and all the rest of it. But does that not illustrate, in the clearest possible terms, the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton—that the Commissioner and, I fear, Home Office Ministers have become—I hope that I do not do them an injustice—overwhelmingly obsessed by public order considerations. To a grossly undue extent, police manpower is being diverted to public order considerations and away from crime prevention and the identification of criminals.

I am sure that the Minister of State agrees that it has now become a truism that by themselves the police cannot prevent crime and bring criminals to justice. The Home Secretary referred to the help that the police receive from a number of organisations and voluntary agencies, but they need help from every citizen. They will be unable to clear up the crime wave unless they receive the full cooperation of all people. They will not receive it if people laugh at them. Opposite Whitechapel station yesterday afternoon a crowd of people were standing on the pavement and they were laughing their heads off at the spectacle of two coachloads of police following a lot of women with babies. Public confidence in the police is destroyed by a spectacle of that kind.

In particular, the confidence of the ethnic minorities in the police is low, and it is very sad that that should be so. Reference has been made to racist incidents and racist attacks. I agree that the definition that has been laid down and that was quoted by the Home Secretary is valuable and helpful, but the Minister of State knows, as I know only too well, that the number of racist incidents that are reported to the police is only the tip of the iceberg. A couple of dozen racist incidents a month are reported to the police in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Hundreds more occur.

When one tries to find out why people do not report incidents to the police, one gets the answer—not only from black but from white people—"What is the point of reporting them to the police? They will not do anything about them anyway." I have evidence that that is not always true, but it is true often enough to create that impression in the minds of people, and to undermine the confidence of people in the police, and so in their eagerness to co-operate with the police that is so necessary if we are to get things improved.

I have been trying hard to do something about this. In Tower Hamlets, we have started a panel of representative people, of which I am the chairman; which meets every month and gets a list of racist incidents that have been reported to the police and information about what the police have done about it. We want it to get around the borough that people should report incidents to the police, because if they do, an independent panel is monitoring what action the police take, so that it cannot be said in the case of those incidents that are reported that nothing is done about them.

Unfortunately, this is very heavy going. It is hard to convince people that this is not merely a whitewashing exercise. I have been accused of running it as an exercise in whitewash, so deep is the gulf—we have to face it because it is a great problem for all of us—between the public and the police.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, (Mr. Smith) that we need a number of improvements to bridge that gulf. I put it to the last Home Secretary but two and to the Commissioner—they did not dispute it—that the great problem of the racist attitude of the Metropolitan police—I pay tribute to the fact that at the top and medium levels great efforts are being made to improve the situation—is not the odd policeman who talks about "nig-nogs" and looks upon them as lesser breeds without the law. Such a policeman is not a big problem. He is nasty, and gets up people's snouts. The big problem is that right through almost the whole of the force there is not the same commitment to protecting the interests of black people as there is to protecting the interests of white people.

As evidence of that, there are many more police recommendations to the victims of crime to take a private prosecution when the victims are black than when they are white. When the victim is black, the police try as hard as possible not to institute prosecutions themselves and to get the individual to do so. In some cases that is justified, but we still have to reflect on why it should be justified in all cases where the victim is black. I do not think that it can be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right to say that there are two other elements at which we need to look if we are to increase public confidence in the police. The first is accountability; I agree with every word that he said about that. The second, with which I also agree, is that complaints against the police must be investigated independently. The present situation is a charade. I have a lot of hard evidence on this—I am not speaking on a hunch. I deliberately laid a complaint at the treatment that I received when I was arrested during the last general election campaign.

I have established a number of facts. First of all, at any point in the police complaints procedure at which there is a conflict of evidence between a civilian and a police officer, the Police Complaints Authority will always accepts as gospel the evidence given by the police officer. Second, the Police Complaints Authority will sometimes reach a conclusion on the basis of evidence that has not been disclosed to the complainant. The complainant has no opportunity to challenge its accuracy. Sometimes even the identity of the witness is not disclosed to the complainant. What sort of investigation is that? A third fact is that what my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) called humiliating treatment by police of civilians is altogether ignored by the authority.

By way of a small personal note, I shall describe something that happened to me when I was arrested. I was in Bow road police station waiting to be transferred to Limehouse police station and I was in a room in which people who have been arrested are placed while waiting to be dealt with. In the room there was a long wooden bench which was narrow and hard. After I had sat on it for about 20 minutes, I got up to stretch my legs and to ease the pain on my bottom. The police officer in charge said, "Sit down." I said, "Why? Am I not allowed to stand?" He said, "No," and I said, "Why not?" He said, "Because I say so." I can understand that sort of thing happening in Moscow or in Santiago de Chile, or in Istanbul, which are in police states, but it should not happen here.

It happens in this place. It sounds like Mr. Speaker.

That officer was not a junior, yet he had no concept at all that he ought to have some sort of decent relationship with civilians. He certainly did not appreciate that his wages are paid by the public and that he was serving the people of his area. In his view, he was their boss and they had to do things because he said so.

If we are to create confidence we must get rid of that sort of attitude. We will not get rid of it until people know that, if they make a complaint, it will not be investigated by somebody whose first instinct is to whitewash a fellow officer.

The things I have spoken about are necessary to create confidence. This debate is useful and hon. Members have dealt with the subject in a practical way. I hope that the debate will make a contribution to creating that confidence.

I see that several right hon. and hon. Members are still trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they want to speak in this debate. Because of the rather limited time available, I hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will forgive me if I do not deal fully with all his points. His somewhat anecdotal account of what occurred in the police station is not typical. Certainly my constituents seldom complain to me about discourteous treatment in police stations.

Several hon. Members have spoken about the need to support the work of the Metropolitan police, and I am sure that that sentiment reflects the public will, because the police are there primarily to protect the public from the consequences of serious and major crime, especially crimes of violence such as murder, rape and manslaughter, and armed robbery with violence. The police also have to deal with traffic and drug offences and all other types of serious crime.

If the House means business on the support of the police, it must support the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which he announced on Wednesday, to end the peremptory challenges of jurors in Crown courts. The work of the Metropolitan police in bringing major criminals to book is hampered and undermined since trial by jury in Crown courts is being systematically distorted, especially in multiple trials, by defence counsel leading to far too many acquittals of defendants who should be convicted. That relates directly to the role of the police in seeking to deal with major crime. It was clear on Wednesday that the House was divided on it. The need for action is misunderstood and it must be explained.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the selection of jurors was supposed to be based on random selection, but the systematic use of peremptory challenge distorts that and has the opposite effect. In Crown courts, each defendant can challenge three jurors without giving any reason. That is called the right to peremptory challenge. Thus, in a multiple trial with four defendants there can be 12 challenges and, with eight defendants, 24 challenges. Several defence counsel working together or independently can continue to challenge and remove jurors until they obtain a jury which is broadly to their liking.

What is now going on makes a mockery of the concept of a fair trial in a Crown court. Juries are supposed to be selected purely at random. Historically, the right to peremptory challenge exists to remove a bias on the part of an individual juror. It now does the opposite. It is being used to introduce a bias: a bias towards acquittal which is a distortion of the legal process.

The Times, in a leading article last June, said:

"A pin-striped suit, an old school or regimental tie, a prominantly displayed copy of the Daily Telegraph seem to provide a virtual guarantee that the bearer will be excluded from the jury".

Today, peremptory challenge seems to be used by defence counsel in an endeavour to achieve, as far as possible, a jury composed of people believed by the defence to be likely to be hostile to the prosecution and sympathetic to the defendant. The article concluded:

"the right to peremptory challenge … ought now to be abolished."

That is a view endorsed by Lord Denning in his book, "What Next in the Law", when he wrote:

"What is the justification today of the right of the accused to 'peremptory' challenges? Should we any longer permit the accused to exclude a juror simply because of his looks?"

He also wrote:

"It is now becoming apparent that the accused, by using the 'peremptory' challenge, may seek to 'pack' the jury-box with jurors who are sympathetic to his side."

It is equally wrong whether the juror is wearing a regimental tie, or has red hair or a black face to exclude him simply because of his appearance. It is a complete and absolute nonsense and it is right to stop it.

It is well known that in the Ponting case three jurors were removed by peremptory challenge and in the Cyprus secrets trial 12 jurors were removed by peremptory challenge. That must have been done by defence counsel in an endeavour to influence the outcome of the case. Otherwise, why should they have sought to do it? It is highly likely that, in some of those cases, it did influence the outcome. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be warmly supported.

I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that I would say how sorry he is to miss the debate. Unfortunately, he is in hospital.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I should like to touch on what happens in police stations under the custody arrangements and the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. I have no doubt that the provisions of that Act in that regard, along with the attendance of a solicitor at the police station, have had a fairly dramatic effect on how people are treated in custody.

Despite what we may say about that Act, there seems little doubt that that arrangement will be changed. There is now a degree of professionalism in the custody of prisoners that was unknown before. There is a clear line of responsibility. I accept that the well-trained senior officers come under pressure when there are mass arrests, but probably as a result of those arrangements some people will now be acquitted or not even charged even though they might have been convicted before. Equally, there is much less likelihood of confessions being challenged, because arrangements are now much more professional.

However, the new arrangements mean that some police officers are more involved in the judicial process than in law enforcement and detection. The Home Office should recognise that that puts an additional strain on police manpower. Those engaged in the arrangements resulting from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should be replaced by policemen who can go on the beat.

The recruitment of black police officers has been a constant theme since I have been a Member of Parliament. I have no doubt that London's police force would be richer and more effective, and would receive more co-operation and support from the public, if it contained more black and ethnic minority members. I shall give a simple illustration. Someone going to see the ballet "Giselle" at the Colosseum would find that most of the audience was white. Someone going to see a performance of "Giselle" put on by the Dance Theatre of Harlem would find that a large proportion of the audience was black. There is only one distinction to be drawn between the performances, and that is that one is performed almost entirely by black dancers while the other is performed almost entirely by white dancers. However, that makes an enormous difference to those who attend and support those performances.

That is a simple illustration of how people identify with the colour of those engaged in a particular service or activity. I very much welcome the efforts that have been made in Brixton by our community liaison officer, Mr. Buchan, and his assistant Mr. Crowe. They have a personalised and intimate method of recruiting black officers, and work very hard at it. I very much welcome their work, although I do not think that it would be helpful to outline what they are doing in detail. Nevertheless, I am sure that everybody would support them. After all, it would be foolish to underestimate the hostility and distrust that still exist among members of the black community of all ages. Only last night, someone said to me, "They didn't want us in the 1960s, but now they are looking for us in the 1980s." The backlog of distrust and hostility should not be underestimated, and I very much welcome the efforts that are being made in that respect.

Last September, there was a riot in Brixton. I shall not say much about it, as I spoke in the debate on it last October. But we recovered from it at a remarkable speed. That speed of recovery is a tribute to the efforts that have been made to obtain more communication and liaison between the police and the community. We should put our money and effort into that. If one person had been killed by a plastic bullet during that riot, it would not have been possible to make the speedy recovery. If the police have to claim superiority in arms and weapons, they have lost the battle.

I went to Brixton police station a couple of days ago. I visit it regularly to learn what is happening and to update myself. As the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) said, 11 teams of police officers are working on nine murders, one shooting and one multiple rape. Within the past few weeks four old-age pensioners have been strangled or otherwise killed in their own homes. One of them was a prominent member of a tennis association in my own constituency.

Within the comparatively small area that is covered by the Brixton division—I have the maps and the figures—it is not unusual to find 500 or 600 robberies in one quarter of one division of my constituency, or to find vehicle crimes rising to 1,500 a year in one quarter of a division. Burglaries are running at about 1,000 in one quarter of a division. The crime figures for the first quarter of the year show that in Lambeth we have the highest level of crime anywhere in London apart from Westminster, where there is a high level of theft in the west end. These crimes are committed largely against poor people, vulnerable people and those who generally are least able to defend themselves.

Everyone has a responsibility, whether as a Member for Parliament, a trade unionist, a councillor or in any other capacity, to defend the civil rights of others not to be assaulted, robbed or murdered, and to play as constructive a part as he can in the battle to preserve people's rights. That does not mean uncritical support for the police. Of course, what is regarded as criticism in one area is often regarded in another as a constructive contribution to the debate on policing. Accountability is important but it is not a substitute for consultation. Neither accountability nor consultation is a substitute for responsibility.

The police manpower that Brixton has been supplied with is inadequate to cope with the task in hand. If manpower is measured against the level of crime instead of population, it is at far too low a level in Brixton. About four times as many crimes take place in Lambeth than in Sutton, yet the distrbution of manpower between the two districts is not substantially different. I ask the Government to devote more resources on the basis of the level of crime rather than on the population criteria.

As we are short of time, there is no chance to develop these arguments. I wish to emphasise, however, that it is no good asking the police to deal with the harvest of seven years of Tory cuts and Tory assaults on the British people in terms of housing, unemployment and poverty. That is an issue to which I hope we can return in future. The Government are making a great mistake if they believe that the police should pick up the bill for the gross neglect of many in responsible positions.

As part of a self-denying ordinance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak for only five minutes.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) talked about his approval of the Home Secretary's suggestion of disallowing the challenge of jurors. He reminded me of a comment, which I thought was most out of place, made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvells), who is known to us all. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said recently that the acquittal rate at Snaresbrook Crown court — it is the Crown court nearest to my constituency—is due to the fact that its juries are made up of the lower working classes and housewives. He said that he would prefer to have on juries more middle-class people and business men. If the right to challenge jurors is lost, we shall lose the more representative juries that are more responsive to those who come before them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for giving me an opportunity to have a smash at the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

I shall turn to the unrepresentative nature of the police force. Hon. Members have referred, quite properly, to the number of black and Asian people in the police force and the need to increase that number. We are glad that the number has increased. Women are very much underrepresented at all levels of the police force, especially at officer level. Only one woman in 32 is at commander level, and none is above that. I am aware that the Metropolitan police force is considering that, especially in front-line police activity. The experiment so far has amounted to putting women in the front-line and seeing how they compare with their male counterparts, in the narrowest sense of the word. A female superintendent who was refused promotion 12 times out of 13 by all-male promotion boards believes:

"Macho policemen set the wrong tone, are insensitive to people, and inadvertently provoke fights and assaults."

She added:

"The violence of the police at Wapping was totally unnecessary. If you gave me a team of women I had specially trained, I could keep the peace, offer no provocation and keep tempers cool."

Make her the Commissioner.

I was not going to propose that. The police force fails to prioritise those aspects of policing which are more reflective of what the community needs. The police strategy also fails to consider the people who are being policed, in the sense that many of them are women. Women have specific needs in cities. Statistically, women are less likely to be attacked than men. I found the figures quite surprising.

However, the fear of attack on the part of women is much greater. One in 10 women in inner London will not go out at night. I should put it the other way round and say that most men should not go out at night, so that women are able to walk the streets in peace. In Balham, 92 per cent. of women do not feel safe walking at night, but a third do not feel safe going out during the day. That is even worse. Women are increasingly at risk due to cuts in public transport. Only half as many women as men can drive or have access to cars.

In the period 1979–84, the amount of violent incidents against women increased dramatically. Offences recorded by the Metropolitan police against the person rose by 22 per cent., rape by 48 per cent., and robbery by 96 per cent. The reality is fast catching up with the perception.

When women are on the receiving end of the police, they seem to suffer a particular form of intimidation. Memories of the miners' strike are still with us, when a woman was forced to "confess" because her screaming baby was deliberately kept in a room next to her to make her more frightened and concerned. Following Broadwater Farm, a woman was asked by police if she was having sex in a photograph they had taken of her. Another was strip searched. Another was called a prostitute, while the police threatened other women with reprisals against their children. We must see that in the context of police strategy.

I beg the Minister of State, when he replies, to give some assurance that there will be some lead from the Home Office in terms of ensuring that the police force is more representative and that there are more women in it. We are glad that there are to be more police officers. Those men and women—black and white—must be put out on the beat and not employed to use plastic bullets and cannons.

rose—

The first of the Front Bench speakers hopes to catch my eye at 2·5 pm. I appeal for brevity, because I should like all those hon. Members who wish to speak to be able to do so.

I shall try to be as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is a travesty of justice and democracy. Once a year, we are allowed five hours—if the Common Market debate does not intervene—to debate the policing of London. No vote is taken at the end of the debate. There is no detailed discussion of the police budget. We are not able to cross-examine the Minister concerned about the policing strategy for London. After all, he is the police authority for London. This is disgraceful.

I question the idea that we have this unaccountable, unelected body that runs policing in London. This perpetuates claims from the Home Office that we have no national police force in London; yet the role of the National Reporting Centre is barely mentioned in the Commissioner's report or in any other report. However, during the miners' strike, at least 7,000 police were at the disposal of the Home Office to be moved willy-nilly around the country. I am certain that, before long, police from outside London will be brought into Wapping, if they are not already there, through the National Reporting Centre.

I am disturbed by the parrot cry of Conservative Members that demonstrations in London cost a lot of money and should not be held. They say that Labour Members should do their best to persuade people not to demonstrate. Are Conservative Members really advocating the curtailment of the right to protest, demonstrate and march? They continually use costings in relation to the number of police at these demonstrations. How much money will be spent next Wednesday, when, I understand, a wedding is to take place? Are there any complaints about that? Of course there are not, but there are complaints about the legitimate right to complain about apartheid, the Wapping dispute, and so on.

I have had long experience of policing in London as a councillor in Haringey and now as a Member of Parliament for Islington. A thorough crime survey was carried out in Islington. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to that survey, which revealed some disturbing features. It reflected—this is of primary importance—the fear of a large number of women who are afraid to go out on the streets at night, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, and often too afraid to go out in the day because of the threat of sexual or racial attack or, in the case of black women, a combination of both.

There is serious under-reporting of sexual harassment and crimes. We believe that often as few as half of the crimes that take place are reported. In some cases, the proportion is even less. Under-reporting of racial attacks and problems is even greater. The police in Islington have told me that, this year, the number of reported racial crimes has increased although they believe—agreeing substantially with the points made in the survey—that the number is much lower than the number of crimes that take place. In the context of high crime rates, attacks on the person, invasion of privacy, robbery and burglary, that is a serious picture.

The police must recognise also—policing policy must direct itself to this — the social background against which we approach the problems of high unemployment and the high degree of social alienation, especially of young people. I urge the Home Secretary to read thoroughly and carefully Lord Gifford's report on the Broadwater Farm incident and all that went with it. I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer more to that report, which is well written, well produced and well researched. It was disgraceful that the police refused to take part in Lord Gifford's inquiry and that the Home Office refused to present evidence directly to it. The Home Secretary may smile, but it was a thorough report and I hope that he will look carefully into it.

The Broadwater Farm estate is an area of very high unemployment and severe poverty. About 35 per cent. of households have annual incomes of less than £3,000 a year, and only 2 per cent. have incomes of more than £15,000 a year. I suspect that many of us could refer to similar examples of inner-city deprivation in our constituencies. Of those who expressed concern about the area, 94 per cent. said that unemployment was the main problem, 42 per cent. blamed housing, 29 per cent. blamed police behaviour, and so on down the line. Those are far worse figures than one would find in any other comparative survey taken in individual parts of London.

When the Government give what I hope will be a serious response to Lord Gifford's inquiry, I hope that they will recognise that what has to be addressed is partly policing, partly control of the police, partly the amount of money that can be spent on housing in an area, partly the design of housing but, above all, the social and economic environment in which the Broadwater Farm riots took place.

I come to the issue of policing policy in London as a whole. We have a process of high capital spending on the police and a highly mobile and technical police force that is increasingly not responding to the worries and wishes of the community and is not available to deal with those worries and wishes. In my constituency we are seeing an increase in problems of racial harassment which have been much worse in other parts of London up to now. We have problems in some schools where Bengali and other Asian children have been harassed on their way home from school and have to be escorted from the school to their home. We have an increasingly serious problem of racism and racial violence in London.

I believe that the Home Office figures and the Metropolitan police figures seriously understate the importance of these matters, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us some inkling about the policies he proposes to eradicate racial violence in London and ensure that the police treat these matters seriously so that people are prepared to report racial crimes to the police because they believe that something will be done about them.

I hope that in future years we will have a longer debate on the policing of London and above all I hope that in the future we will see an elected police authority for London which is seriously accountable to the people in London and we do not have to use the process of an Adjournment debate in the House once a year.

We are today considering the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the review of public order. I want to say a few words about what the role of the police should be. We have heard about what the role is and we have heard from my hon. Friends about the considerable number of problems that arise as a result of the lack of proper policing in London. I understand that the role of the police is to see that the law is enforced. It should also be for the defence of democracy and freedom in this country and to defend the rights of the common people.

Many problems face the police. That is quite clear from the Commissioner's report to the House. Reference has recently been made to the fact that there are about 3—5 million offences each year. Of the offences mentioned in the Commissioner's report, some 20,000 are concerned with violence. The so-called public order issues — in other words, victories which have been achieved — include the police victory against the miners, and police victories against the printers, hospital workers, nuclear protesters and others who have attempted to exercise their democratic rights in this country either as trade unionists or as citizens concerned with peace.

All that, and the many other problems that arise out of bad policing in this country, happen because of the philosophy of the Prime Minister and her Government. We have a competitive society in which people battle and victory goes to those who are strong and wealthy. Society has become more and more like a jungle as a result of the insistence upon a competitive society. I would rather we had a society based more on mutual aid and co-operation.

Hackney, the area I represent, has one of the highest crime rates. I notice from the figures produced that in the first quarter of this year some 7,417 crimes have been put on record. There has been a poor response to the citizens' call for aid from the police. A petition was presented to me last week, signed by over 100 home owners in one street. They complained about the lack of response from the Mare street police to their pleas of assistance because of the large number of offences that have been committed. That petition has been sent on to the Home Secretary.

On the other hand, there is over-policing of street demonstrations, during strikes and so on. I have had occasion to complain about that in the Hackney area, where there have been as many policemen as demonstrators walking through the streets. However, I was responsible for organising some 83,000 people in a demonstration proceeding from Trafalgar square to Victoria park in Hackney. There was not one incident and there was no trouble. The Home Secretary can look it up. Masses of police were not needed. Similarly, there was a demonstration of 100,000 people across to Brixton on the issue of Nazism. Again, there was no need for the masses of police put on to the streets for such events.

We need police on the streets, but we need them on the beat, where the people can see them, go to them and get their assistance. There is still far too much of the Starsky and Hutch approach by the police to policing in London.

There have been numerous cases of bad behaviour, which I have referred to various Home Secretaries over a period. All those complaints have led to a loss of public support. For example, that loss of public support is shown in Hackney, where a pamphlet called "Police out of School" has been produced because of the bad relations that have developed between the public and the police. The teachers have had to take a stand on the matter so that attention may be drawn to it.

All those problems cannot be solved by introducing so-called new weapons, whether water cannon, gas, plastic bullets, flails or armoured vehicles. What is needed is co-operation between the police and the local authorities. The Commissioner has refused co-operation with Hackney borough council's police committee. All political parties on the council and all ethnic groups are represented on that committee. I have a letter from the commander of the police dated 8 October 1985—the last letter I received—saying:

"a period of calm must prevail before we return to the vital task of setting up a Consultative Group for Hackney … I will write to you again shortly".

There is no consultative committee, but Hackney borough council has set up a committee on which there should be consultation. The sooner that is done, the better. I urge the Home Secretary to give his authority to the local police to meet the Hackney borough council police committee so that they may look at the problems and see what can be done, on the basis of co-operation, to solve the crimes in that area.

I shall not make the speech that I was going to make because there is not time. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that. I shall restrict myself to one or two points. I am grateful to see the Home Secretary here because I want to say a word to him.

It is right and proper that we should debate these matters in the House. While on a deputation to Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary, I asked that we should have an annual debate. I am pleased that we have it, but no one should think that it is sufficient or that it in any way constitutes the effective police accountability that we need. On their own, such debates are thoroughly unsatisfactory in providing proper scrutiny of the Metropolitan police.

The Police Federation sends us a copy of its monthly magazine. I am glad that it does. However, I am concerned at the apparent growing politicisation of the federation and the snide attacks on the Labour party in that magazine. It is no part of the sort of police force that we want for it to support one party rather than another, or to seek to influence policemen's voting behaviour. The federation should think carefully about its attitude and approach. At the moment it is in danger of doing itself a grave disservice by appearing to go down that road.

The police, like everybody else, should tremble before the ballot box and respect it. The same applies to Commissioner Newman. I want him to know that I resent his increasingly political statements. We do not think it proper for generals or admirals to sound off in that way, so senior policemen should not, either. Policemen, whatever their rank, should be careful not to give the impression that they consider themselves to he the handmaidens of the Conservative party.

The police are being brought into politics.

The main criticism that my constituents make is of police ineffectiveness in dealing with crime. The growth of crime cannot be blamed on the police. The blame is more with the Government for creating the conditions in which crime can breed.

The police clear-up rate in London is low. I receive complaints about that. Only one crime in five is cleared up. My constituents tell me that they do not think it worth reporting crime because it is a waste of time. They have great difficulty finding a policeman when they need one.

I am worried that the police force is being turned into a paramilitary force. The Commissioner is ordering armoured cars and looking at water cannon. We are all fond of our friendly neighbourhood bobby, but if, next time we meet him, he has a NATO helmet on his head, a visor so that we cannot see his face, carries a shield, waves a drawn truncheon, has a belt full of plastic bullets round his waist, a canister of CS gas strapped to his back, and is mouthing obscenities, we might look at him differently.

I am particularly against paramilitary policing because I have experienced it personally. I was on the receiving end of it on the evening of 3 May at Wapping. I was shocked and appalled at what I saw. I have still not recovered from the experience. It is difficult for me to look at the police in the same way.

I brought a deputation to see the Minister of State about that occasion. I have been forced to a number of conclusions. If there is supposed to be accountability, as a parliamentarian I believe that it is here in the House that we are entitled to say what we think. I shall not have time to justify the conclusions I have drawn, but I shall do that on another occasion.

The first is that the notion that there is some sort of democratic accountability for the Metropolitan police through the Home Secretary to the House is a myth and a farce. Secondly, Ministers have very little idea of what goes on in our streets. Thirdly, senior police officers are not really answerable to anyone. Fourthly, policemen have shown that they can act outside the law and get away with it. Often when things go wrong no one is called to account; no one has to justify actions or apologise.

Fifthly, the police proved on 3 May that they are, in the strictest meaning of the word, irresponsible, and that on occasions they can do what they like. That is intolerable and cannot be allowed to continue. When I have the chance I shall justify those statements.

I have two other comments to make—one to the Home Secretary and the other to Assistant Commissioner Wynn-Jones. I do not know what the Assistant Commissioner does to justify the huge salary that the taxpayer provides. His main role seems to be minister of propaganda for the Metropolitan police. His main contribution is in the black art of manipulating the media. He held a press conference after the events of 3 May. I read what he said and I was astonished. I could not believe that he was talking about the same event that I had witnessed. I asked where he was between 10—30 and midnight. I was told that he was in Leman street police station. He was not an eye witness. He had seen nothing. I was there and did see.

On 8 May we had a debate in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was also an eye witness of the events, gave an account of what happened. It was an accurate account. I notice the Home Secretary sitting there with a look of incredulity on his face. He started to laugh, as I saw him laughing earlier this morning. Then, with a fatuous, supercilious gesture, he ostentatiously walked out, as though to say, "That is complete nonsense. It cannot be true." He did not believe it. His duty as Home Secretary, when a Privy Councillor was explaining what happened, was to sit and listen. He must not be a Home Secretary who does not want to know and who is not prepared to have such democratic accountability. It is intolerable. We must get some democracy into this.

rose—

rose—

The hon. Gentleman is being absurd.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) had sat down.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving me the opportunity to speak. What I found so strange on that occasion was that the account given by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) differed so substantially from the account that we heard a few minutes earlier from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

It did not.

Hansard shows that it did. Any account by an eye witness to those events and any complaints deserve to be and will be thoroughly investigated and set against the accounts of other witnesses.

I endorse word for word the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I was also present on 3 May and confirm that my hon. Friend's account was absolutely correct, as was the account given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which in no way differed, as I heard it, from the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

I will be briefest of all. This demonstrates how pathetic and miserable is the suggestion that somehow London Members of Parliament exercise, through the House, accountability over the Metropolitan police. Two Ministers are present. Neither the Home Secretary nor the Minister of State comes from London. I know that we are not supposed to recognise people sitting outside the Chamber, but one person whom I would have liked to have seen today would have looked remarkably like the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. But he is not here. What is more, I do not suppose that he even bothers to take account of the serious fears expressed by the Opposition.

Does he read Hansard?

Why should he? We do not hold the police accountable.

Statistically, London has the most inefficient police force in the country and the most expensive. We do not get value for money—a term that Conservative Members appreciate — from the services of the Metropolitan police. For the police to continue to amplify public order offences on television while ignoring or under-playing the burglaries and the street crime which really worries people in London is disgraceful. I do not know how the Commissioner thinks that he will clear up burglaries in Newham with water cannon and plastic bullets. But the people of Newham want those crimes cleared up. Yet an hon. Member such as myself, trying to represent his constituents, is reduced to a pathetic two minutes in a miserable half-day debate on policing in London.

I confirm that the Home Secretary's remarks were incorrect. Hansard will show clearly that my remarks fitted in with what my right hon. and hon. Friends said. I limited myself to what I saw that night.

It is true, as several of my hon. Friends have said, that the debate has shown the inadequacy of accountability. It is one reason why the next Labour Government, in about 18 months' time, will introduce a proper system of accountability for the Metropolitan police and for other police forces.

In 1979, the Government said that they would get tough on law and order. If anyone had said at the time that during the following six years there would be riots on the streets of London, that police officers would be injured, and in one case killed, that police officers would be shot at with guns, that the crime rate would increase by 41 per cent. between 1978 and now, and that we would be pleased at the improvement of the clear-up rate from 17 per cent. to 18 per cent., he would have been regarded as extremely alarmist. If he had gone on to say that in a written answer to this House the Home Secretary would slip through an announcement that police forces in London were to have 24 armoured personnel carriers, another 100 vehicles for carrying members of the police force around London and 2½ ft long truncheons, people would have said that he was stark, staring mad. But all that has happened during the last six years of this Conservative Government.

The Home Secretary said in his opening speech that the issue of these weapons has not changed policing. It has changed policing, and the tragedy is the policing has been changed in the last six years in a way that, prior to 1979, nobody in this country would have believed possible. The Government thought that they could make law and order a party political issue on which they would win, and that they could deal with the problem of law and order by getting tough again. But getting tough has no effect whatsoever on the country's crime rate. What has an effect is the collapse of the community. The Government have failed to take into account the fact that the social and economic policies that they have pursued have resulted in an already dangerous and difficult situation in our inner cities being made profoundly worse. The community has become increasingly fractured by the Government's policies.

To try to deal with the problem by increasing the number of police officers, by arming the police and by giving them different types of weapons is not the answer. The police are beginning to recognise that, although not, frankly, with the force and urgency that is needed by some of them, if they are to return to the kind of policing that most of them want.

I ask the Home Secretary to take away the Broadwater Farm report and read it and to ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to read it. It contains many important messages. The first is a quotation from the Commissioner's public order review. He said:

"In 1981 the tenants' association"—

he was referring to the Broadwater Farm—

"on the estate asked the police to open a police office to help combat the rising crime rate and to reduce the anxiety felt by many residents about their safety. This move was not altogether welcome by young black residents, and was seen by them as constituting an oppressive presence on the estate."

The implication in that quotation is immensely damaging. It implies that young blacks did not want something to be done about crime. The Broadwater Farm report, the Islington report, even the Police Studies Institute study, to some extent, the Merseyside report and a number of other reports all show that, regardless of age, sex or ethnic background, people have the same anxieties about crime. Young blacks on the Broadwater Farm estate were desperately anxious about crime and wanted something effective to be done about it. But that is not what was done.

The Commissioner ignores what is pointed out on page 204 of the Broadwater Farm report, where there is a reference to a parliamentary answer in the House of Lords. The question was about how many stops and searches were carried out in the Tottenham area in 1985. The answer was that

"in the first three months there were 867 stops resulting in 175 arrests; and in the last nine months there were 413 searches followed by 51 arrests."

It must be noted that the answer refers to arrests, not to convictions. The Merseyside report, the PSI study and a number of other reports show that the clear-up rate in the case of stop and search and the search of people's homes is abysmally low. A number of my hon. Friends have emphasised that all that that does is to alienate many innocent people who want to go about their normal lives without interference. That is what is so profoundly wrong.

On page 24 of his report "A Police for the People" the Commissioner says that he is worried about the disaffection of young people. He is right to be worried. The trouble is that he does not go on to ask why they are disaffected. He goes on to say what he is trying to do about it. The tragedy is that what he is trying to do is inadequate. He lists football matches with youngsters, visits to schools, dances, visits to zoos and one or two other such items. Nowhere is there anything about the problem of racism in the police force, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. Nowhere is there a comment on the effects of stop and search in the street when it is carried out inappropriately on the people of an area. That missing part is vital.

There is something sad about a report that is written in the language of American sociology and management jargon in the 1960s. I am not a sociologist, but I know that that period of sociology did more damage to the reputation of sociology than anything else. It was often tautological in its arguments. However, the language is used again in the report, which talks about "the system" as though human beings were not part of it. The trouble is that human beings are central to policing. The most important point that is not addressed is that about the relationship between police officers and the community. The Commissioner refers to that occasionally, but the depth of thought that he has given to it is not good enough.

The Home Secretary said that he wanted to improve the number of police on the streets. I do not disagree with him, but that is not enough in its own right. There are dozens of police on Broadwater Farm, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). That is not enough. The research done on Broadwater Farm shows that, again regardless of race, sex or age, there is the simple feeling that the police were not operating fairly and that young blacks were singled out for stop and search. It can be said that all those people are wrong and we should take no notice of them, and that all the surveys carried out are a load of nonsense that should be ignored. However, if we do not listen to the people, we are making trouble for ourselves in the inner cities. Both we and the police have a duty to listen to them, and that is one of the reasons why there should be a better system of accountability.

It is a matter not just of numbers in the street but of behaviour on the street. That is why training and experience are so important. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the first thing that was cut as a result of training required under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was the policing skills which the Commissioner has said are so vital. These skills are social skills such as the ability to cope with people in difficult situations, as the police are often asked to do. That training was only reintroduced in 1985 when the pressure of the other training reduced. There is a desperate need to do much more on experience and training.

Again, that makes the case for effective accountability, because we are talking about priorities. Whichever survey one reads, it is pointed out that people, regardless of age, sex or ethnic origin, say that their main priorities for police action are burglary, street robbery, drunken driving, heroin and drugs, and sexual and racial assault. However, the priorites of individual police officers are often different. That is one of the problems. Police officers say that they know what the people in the area want, but they are wrong. They are not wicked, bad or incompetent, but they have made a misjudgment. That misjudgment gets them into difficulties. Curiously, it gets even more out of control without effective accountability.

On page 37 of his report, the Commissioner says that the lorry ban and the ban on parking on footpaths, both issues of considerable importance to the people of London, as has been made clear, are things to which he cannot give high priority, given the other problems facing him. At one level that is true, in the sense that the six priorities that I set out are important, but it is also clear that the bans would be given priority by those who had to answer to the public. The Metropolitan Commissioner of Police does not have to answer to them except through the Home Secretary in this inadequate debate.

Some 5,500 people are killed in England and Wales each year as a result of road traffic accidents. The figure for London is 500, although I am going on memory there. That is a matter which worries people and it is the sort of thing that we should be debating. We should be debating the priorities, but that is precisely what we cannot do effectively in a debate of this nature.

Finally, I should like to return to the matter of crime prevention. The Government have failed to recognise that they cannot cope with the rise in crime unless they do something to heal the fracturing of our communities, especially the communities in our inner cities and people involved in industrial disputes who are frightened about their jobs and their economic future.

Neighbourhood policing sometimes works well because the community is already functioning well and community policing adds to it. It can be a useful innovation where one is trying to build up a community, but it cannot work well and can only be at best a third or fourth alternative where the community is so fractured that people cannot be brought together in an effective way to prevent crime. People put on strong doors and strong locks and retreat and do not go out if they hear a noise or something frightening. The Government are not facing that and if they think that they can get round it by giving people occasional grants of £50 to enable them to fit stronger doors they are merely ducking their responsibility for the cutbacks that they have imposed on the inner cities.

The Minister has a lot of questions to answer. I should like to add one further question of considerable importance about accountability. Since the May election new police committees have been formed by a number of local authorities. If the relevant local senior police officer wants to participate and co-operate with those committees, and if he recognises that the police will not be held accountable because that is not what the law is about, will he be allowed to do so? Above all, will he be encourged to do so? There is a suggestion that senior police officers, even when they want to co-operate to improve relations between local authorities and police, will not be allowed to do so. Can the Minister give us a clear and categorical assurance that any senior police officer of the relevant rank will be able to participate in the way that I have suggested? That would be a small step on the road to a better system of accountability.

The debate has covered a wide range of issues. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members have not been able to deploy their arguments as long as they would have wished. Any hon. Member who wishes to come separately to raise with me issues that they were not able to raise in the debate is welcome to do so.

The issues raised by the report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the policing of London are broad. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he was worried about the ethnic attitudes of the police and ethnic requirement, and both those matters were picked up by other hon. Members. I say to those hon. Members who rightly raised these issues that the Metropolitan police are doing everything possible to increase the number of ethnic recruits without in any way reducing standards or trying to suggest that an ethnic recruit is somehow or other more special than any other recruit.

We are seeking to overcome the resistance of ethnic groups. No doubt that is based upon an unfortunate history, but we are trying to encourage them to join the police service. I beg hon. Members to recognise that they can help to try to improve the position. There are increasing signs that more people from the ethnic minorities are coming forward to try to join the Metropolitan police. Equally, there are many signs that they will not necessarily be able to stay, because pressures are sometimes placed upon them not to proceed. However, the commitment is there to do it.

The right hon. Gentleman made many references to Wapping and everything else that that entails. It is not possible to try to excise that problem from the rest of the duties of the Metropolitan police and to suggest that that is an excessive matter in the policing of London. The police must ensure that the streets of London are free for those who want to proceed upon their lawful way. There can be no question but that the incidents at Wapping, like incidents outside major football matches on Saturdays, must have Metropolitan police cover.

rose—

I shall not give way, as time is short. Although there is a major police commitment at Wapping, it was not of their choosing and the incidents there fully justify the police taking such precautions as they might. Moreover, the incidents have now spread well beyond Wapping. The News International warehouse in Deptford was destroyed by fire. On 19 June a TNT distribution depot in Kent was attacked by some 15 individuals. On 25 June another TNT depot in Luton was attacked and on 6 July a major attack was made on the TNT depot at Eastleigh in Hampshire involving about 300 individuals and damaging commercial and private vehicles, property and so on. That cannot but require the police to make substantial efforts to try to contain a massive incidence of criminal activity and public disorder.

Give Murdoch the bill.

Happily, that was not the only event that hon. Members have sought to raise. I must commend the substantial progress made on crime prevention within the Metropolitan police district. There are significant limitations on what can be achieved and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that we cannot expect this to be a wand which will suddenly reduce crime figures. However, I trust that hon. Members will agree that it has a major effect upon anxieties about crime and a major direct contribution to make.

Let me deal now with consultative groups because that is where we must start to discuss accountability. Consultative groups were dealt with in section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and they have been a matter of great debate within London. There are still five boroughs within which no groups have been set up—Camden, Newham, Hackney, Southwark and a portion of the Welwyn and Hatfield borough for which the Metropolitan police district is responsible, but for which a consultative group is perhaps not appropriate.

Equally, there are boroughs where there is no council representation on the consultative group, such as Lambeth, Ealing, Brent and Haringey. The councils have decided not to participate. The answer to the question just posed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith is that, where statutory provision is made, and where there is a group which represents a much broader range of public opinion than the council can hope to do, it is essential that the council plays its full part in the consultative process. Not to do so is to undermine the purposes for which they were established.

I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that at last there has been progress in Southwark. An agreement and a constitution have been arrived at. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the help that he gave and also to many others outside the House who have worked to achieve that. I understand that it is hoped that that group will be set up in September. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) talked about the problems of prostitution in Streatham. I recognise that in several places in London, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminister, North (Mr. Wheeler), there have been real problems in relation to that aspect of crime. It is difficult to contain, but I shall see that the matter is drawn to the attention of the officers concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) asked about specials. Greater effort should be made in that regard, both within the police services outside the Metropolis, and, I hope, within. More police hours have been spent with specials in London than in the previous year — more than 419,500 man hours, compared to fewer than 300,000 man hours some five years ago. Here we have a big opportunity to involve people such as specials, and to recruit them. They may well come from the ethnic communites, and they could begin to assist in policing activities, such as the neighbourhood watch arrangements.

I turn to the points raised in connection with Tottenham and Haringey. I see that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is in his place. I recognise that there have been tremendous problems, and reports have been deployed for public discussion. The report of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richards was placed before the consultative committee in Haringey—be it noted—and was publicly discussed. The Commissioner's complete report on public disorders and Lord Gifford's report have also been published. So I say to the hon. Members for Tottenham and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that I understand that Lord Gifford's report raises several important issues. One of them involves Haringey council's participation in the consultative group. Lord Gifford agrees with the council's claim that at present the group is insufficiently representative but said that its boycott is misguided. However, I shall invite Lord Gifford to see me to discuss the report, as I recognise that there are issues that we should discuss.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised several constituency points. I was particularly interested in his comments on the Barnsbury estate. I also recognise that many valuable lessons can be learnt from the work done by the study group that was set up in Islington. That work demonstrates a theme that ran through the speeches of several hon. Members which is that what people perceive to be the case about their communities should be important in discussing how they wish to be policed. I fully accept that. It was just that sort of contribution that worked so effectively in the Lambeth consultative group, and which enabled the return to normality following the riots in Brixton. There was a massive improvement in the relations between the police and the community, although Lambeth council seeks to undermine it at every opportunity. I accept that there are important lessons to be learnt from that.

When travelling up and down the country I often found that the problems on estates lessened as proper residents' or community associations set about reducing graffiti and vandalism, and increased the pride felt by those living there. On that basis, crime prevention techniques can surely work and improve the community.

In talking about crime prevention, we do not seek purely to provide adequate safeguards against the continued growth in burglary, vandalism and graffiti. We are trying to make the environment safer and to reduce the anxieties of local people. I think that all Members want that.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) spoke strongly in support of the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the right of peremptory challenge, which will no doubt have a contribution to make in relation to the operation of our courts.

The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a thoughtful speech and stressed the problems caused by hostility and distrust. He also mentioned that speed of recovery from a situation is probably directly related to improved liaison between the police and the community. I think that he cited the case of Brixton in that regard. I also welcomed his comments about the professional handling of those who are brought into police stations for questioning. I believe that that will be accepted as the right way of going about such issues, although I recognise that the police service in turn has a major commitment in trying to achieve that in the relatively short time since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been in force.

The debate has ranged widely, because the problems of policing in London are also wide-ranging. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have a large police district and by far the largest police force in the United Kingdom. Most criminal activity is centred on our capital city, especially in relation, for example, to heroin and security issues. London is unique in that regard.

The House must recognise the strains and stresses of operating in the Metropolitan police service. Examples have been quoted of inadequate policing, insensitive policing or policing which does not accord with the views of some hon. Members. Conditions cannot be improved, however, without a proper and logical basis on which dialogue with the police can take place.

It is absurd to believe—

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

—that by making councils responsible for policing activity—

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Object.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on policing in the Metropolis is supposed to be the annual event when Members can express their feelings and, through the Home Secretary, hold the Metropolitan police to account. It is a special occasion for London Members.

I am a Back-Bench Member trying to represent the constituency of Newham, North-West, and through pressure of time I was effectively prevented from representing my constituents in the debate. I know that there are devices open to me as a Member to raise matters of concern within my constituency, but I wanted to raise them within the debate on policing in the Metropolis. We are constantly told that the debate is the one occasion when we can exercise some form of accountability over the Metropolitan police. I think that that is a constitutional nonsense, but that is what we are told.

At 11.30 am we spent 35 or 40 minutes on an important statement, and that time was taken from the debate on policing in the Metropolis. I submit that when that happens, 35 or 40 minutes, or however long is spent on the statement, should be added on to our proceedings. I give notice in raising this point of order that I shall raise this issue with the Procedure Committee. I hope that I shall be supported by my Back-Bench colleagues, many of whom were limited by the pressure on time. Some of them could not participate at all, which is even worse.

I understand these frustrations and I recognise that the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) has had a frustrating day. He has addressed himself to the right procedures. The issue he has raised is one for the House to decide through the Procedure Committee and is not a matter for the Chair.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the key aspects of the debate on policing in the Metropolis is that the Commissioner's report, which has been agreed by Home Office Ministers, states that there will be additional militarisation for the Metropolitan police. It is being authorised to buy military-type weapons.

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise matters of policy on points of order.

I am not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must inform me what his point of order is.

My point of order is that at 29 minutes past two o'clock my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) attempted to obtain a vote by a procedural means that you ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is vital in the interests of Londoners that there should be a vote on whether the increased militarisation of the police goes ahead. It is a disgrace to democracy and so-called accountability that such a decision should be made. The Guardian has stated that it will involve more accidental death and alienation, and will arouse precisely the patterns that Scarman urged the police to cool. It is a disgrace that this should go ahead without us having an opportunity to vote upon the issue. I ask for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how we can secure such a vote.

Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you understand the frustrations of London Members on such matters. Can you advise the House by what means we can obtain a vote on an important statement made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis through the Home Secretary? [Interruption.] The hon. Member who seeks to interrupt is outside the Chamber. Therefore, he has no right to interrupt. Can you advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by what means we can ensure that, before the House rises for the summer recess, there can be a debate and a vote on the question of the Commissioner's report to the House of Commons so that hon. Members who wish to do so may express their dissatisfaction with the method and policy of policing in London?

There are ways and means of putting down appropriate motions on which a vote can be taken. That is not a matter for me.

Object.

I wanted the House to debate the subject of experimentation on premature babies because of my profound respect for life and my conviction that Parliament is failing miserably to protect it. In the remarks I shall make, it is not my intention to undermine the confidence or support that the general public has in and for the medical profession. However, I regret that among some quarters, especially those in support of experimentation, there is an arrogance, almost amounting to insolence, that the medical profession knows best and that Joe Public does not know what he is talking about and has no right to an opinion. Such a view is unacceptable. The mood of the British people is changing. We have a right to know the truth. That is what we expect; nothing less.

Most people accept that life begins at conception. I am not aware of any opponent of that view having been able to disprove it. With that in mind, the House will not be surprised at how concerned I and many other people were when the findings of a report published by the Institute of Medical Ethics was released. People were appalled to learn that about 2,000 sick or premature babies are used in medical experiments each year without parental consent. The Sunday Express published a leader headlined "A Sick Society" which stated:

"We have allowed abortion to grow into a major industry which kills the unborn as a matter of routine. We permit medical science to conduct experiments on the human foetus. It is commonplace now for scientists to argue that embryos should be produced solely for the benefit of research. Will it really be any surprise if future generations look back on the evils we permit and conclude that our society was rotten beyond redemption?"

I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) is in his place in the Chamber. He will recall a conversation that we had some weeks ago with an eminent doctor who had just returned from visiting an abortion clinic in London. That clinic specialised in late abortions that were given primarily to people from overseas. So late were those abortions that a mincing machine had to be used to destroy the limbs. Only a few weeks ago we read of an abortion where the child was still alive. If ever those words of the leader in the Sunday Express were true, they are true now.

The medical experiments to which I shall refer involve invasive procedures, some of which could prove harmful to the babies, whilst others could benefit them. Some might be quite simple techniques, such as taking blood samples. Others could be far more harmful. We do not know. Nor do we know how many of those experiments would be in connection with developing new forms of treatment. I am told that a number would be in connection with learning more about the basic physiology of premature babies and, in some cases, improving the care of those infants, perhaps by the use of drugs or other means.

As for parental consent, if research involving invasive techniques was carried out on a child for whom no direct benefit was intended and that research might damage that child, I regard it as irrelevant to be told that the parents gave permission. Surely in this country giving my permission would not make lawful any kind of assault on my children, no matter how beneficial the result may be in helping other children. That was the view of the DHSS and the Medical Research Council only six years ago when, in 1980, a report from the Social Services Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality was published and highly publicised as the Short report. In that report, parliamentarians were told that the MRC said:

"in the strict view of the law, parents and guardians of minors cannot give consent on their behalf to any procedures which are of no particular benefit to them and which may carry such risk of harm".

The DHSS said:

"the position in law is that no parent or guardian of tender years is entitled to give consent to any procedure which is not for the benefit of the child."

Of course, there was something of an outcry at the time about the suggestion that newborn handicapped babies might be used for experimental purposes.

As the Short report claimed that there was no

"statute law or case law"

on which to base the DHSS and MRC advice, counsel's opinion was sought by the pro-life lobby. In this, counsel quotes the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 and the Children Act 1975 and says:

"If any person who has attained the age of 16 years and has the custody, charge or care of any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, illtreats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or causes or procures him to be assaulted, illtreated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering of injury to health, that person shall be guilty of an offence."

The view of counsel was that this covered any invasive procedures on a child that could do it harm, were not for the direct benefit of the child concerned and that were prohibited by that legislation as well as by trite law.

During the study by the Society for the Study of Medical Ethics, many reports of research on children undertaken in the United Kingdom and published in British journals were examined. Few described a project that might have been unethical, although some projects could be described as being unkind. However, some research projects carried out overseas would have been most unlikely to receive ethical approval from any British research ethics committee. A French researcher performed four lumbar punctures each on 57 newborn babies in the first two weeks of their life, in an unsuccessful attempt to find biochemical support for a rather unlikely scientific theory about brain damage in infants. An Indian team performed liver biopsies on 29 children with biochemically normal liver functions, because the children had sibling with Indian childhood cirrhosis and the researchers were looking— unsuccessfully I might add—for evidence to support the idea that that disease had a genetic origin.

I understand that, at the Cambridge neonatal intensive care unit, it is not the practice to get consent from parents for all experiments. The Institute of Medical Ethics bulletin includes a report from a meeting at which a Cambridge consultant actually said that it was unethical to obtain permission from parents and that they should be told as soon as possible afterwards. The same unit has been examining the respiratory distress syndrome and has been trying to find a way of getting the missing chemical back into the lungs of premature babies. Having met with no success, is it worth while continuing and is such research of benefit?

I have to tell the House that I, along with many other people, am not satisfied with controls on experimentation on life. The DHSS, following a recommendation, put out a circular in 1975 calling for research ethics committees to be established as an obvious safeguard and form of control. As far as I am aware, absolutely nothing has happened since that recommendation. I would be interested to know what safeguards the Department requires on experimentation. What procedures have to be adhered to? What checks are carried out, and how?

I fully recognise the marvellous advances that medical science has made in so many areas of health care. However, in certain quarters there is an arrogance that amounts to a view that research is all-important regardless of the lives being used or destroyed to that end.

Only this week, the largest lobby of this Session—well over 10,000 women, men and children—took place in support of the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn sought to introduce. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to my party, if we are looking for popular legislation to introduce, that which would outlaw experimentation and give protection to the unborn child is what the whole nation cries out for. If we fail to act on these matters, we shall rightly be regarded with contempt. If we grasp the nettle, future generations will salute this Parliament as a Parliament of Kings.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for allowing me to speak in his Adjournment debate. Like him, I was concerned to read the report produced by the Institute of Medical Ethics, and, like him, I was delighted that the Sunday Express published an important leader on the subject—a leader which I feel put forward the views of the overwhelming majority in this country.

It was a brave gesture on the part of the Sunday Express when one considers that the largest rally I have seen this Parliament—some 10,000 people lobbying Members of Parliament against research on human embryos on Wednesday—was totally ignored by the national press and television, with the exception of a few lines in The Guardian My appearance on Central television was cancelled because the viewers were likely to be upset by the subject.

The pro-life issue is not a popular one with the media, or the Government who seem to accept abortion on demand and apparently condone experiments on embryos. Having set up the Warnock committee because they recognised the danger of developments in embryology, they have done nothing about it.

If we have no respect for human life at its earliest and most vulnerable stage, should we be surprised that at a later stage, muggings, rape and murder increase? Do they not stem from the same lack of respect we show if we support abortion on demand and experiments on embryos and premature babies?

In 1980 a highly regarded parliamentary Select Committee concluded that the law prevented any invasive procedures on a child which could do it harm and which were not for the direct benefit of the child involved. That view of the law was confirmed by the DHSS and the Medical Research Council. Indeed, the Select Committee recommended that the DHSS should arrange for further medico-legal discussions, with a view to amending the law as it relates to research on newborn infants. No such discussions have taken place and certainly no Bills of such a nature have been put before the House. Yet within six years we learn that the medical establishment—playing God — has started undertaking these practices in hundreds, possibly thousands, of cases.

The latest report contradicts the Short report and tells us that these procedures are allowable. However, it says that efforts should be made to develop scales quantifying risk and benefit—to others, not to the child concerned—so as to reduce reliance on the qualitative description of risk in use at present.

The report is a chilling insight into the activities of some doctors. It is very worrying for parents and patients, and makes all patients wonder whether they are being used as human guinea pigs. The way ahead for research is through mutual trust and not hoodwinking trusting, unsuspecting people, be they patient or parent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on choosing the subject of experiments on premature babies for his Adjournment debate. He gave time to our hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), but I must reject the latter's assertions about the Government's attitude to abortion and research on human embryos that he included in his short intervention.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to reply to this debate on the important topic of research on premature babies. The vulnerability of children and of young babies makes particularly repugnant any suggestion that research is being carried out on them which is either harmful or unethical. I share the concern, so eloquently and properly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, arising from the recent report from the working group of the Institute of Medical Ethics on medical research with children, which suggests that breaches of existing codes of practice in that area may be taking place. While my officials are not aware of any direct evidence to that effect, I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall look carefully at what he has said today and make urgent inquiries about the matters that he has raised or that others raise with me as a result of the debate, because I fully accept the great importance of the subject.

The conduct of clinical research in this country is governed by the provisions of the general law and by the ethics of the medical profession. It is, I understand, widely accepted that research investigations on human beings should be governed by codes of practice such as those of the World Medical Association and of the Medical Research Council. Those are general statements of principle. More detailed guidance on the application of those principles has also been issued in this country by the Royal College of Physicians, in 1967, 1973 and most recently in 1984 and, specifically on research on children, by the British Paediatric Association in 1980.

In 1962, the Medical Research Council issued a statement on responsibility in investigations on human research because rapid advances in medical knowledge over the preceding 50 years were posing increasing legal and ethical problems for both investigators and their subjects. In 1967 the Royal College of Physicians recommended that clinical research investigations should be subject to ethical review. In 1973 the college made detailed recommendations on the composition and scope of the ethical committees which conduct that review.

In 1984 the college published further guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research, which summarised aspects of the practice of ethics committees and the problems that they face. That guidance again stresses the importance of all research projects affecting human subjects going before an ethics committee for consideration of both the ethical aspects and quality of the proposal, makes recommendations for the membership and mode of working of ethics committees and gives guidance on some of the particular issues that the committees need to consider in relation to each project that comes before them. They would, for example, include the way in which consent is to be obtained, the involvement of vulnerable groups in research and so on. Those guidelines are relevant to the conduct of all research, including trials, and the particular dilemmas of conducting research on children are clearly acknowledged.

The ethics of health research in this country has traditionally and generally been for self-regulation by the health professions. However, in 1975, as my hon. Friend said, the Department of Health and Social Security gave advice to health authorities based on the Royal College of Physicians' deliberations. The then Secretary of State accepted the college's recommendations on the composition of ethical committees and asked health authorities to put those recommendations into effect. Two matters of particular importance were drawn to health authorities' attention. First, health authorities were asked to note the Royal College of Physicians' report recommendation that all proposed clinical research investigations should be referred to an ethical committee. The second concerned clinical research investigations of children or mentally handicapped adults. The DHSS guidance drew attention to the uncertainties of the law of consent in that respect. I shall return to that in more detail in a moment.

This departmental guidance was issued more than a decade ago and I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend that consideration is being given as to whether new guidance from the Department is now required. While I cannot yet say what such new guidance might cover, subjects for inclusion could well be the composition, status and functioning of ethical committees and the need for all clinical research investigations in NHS institutions to be referred to them. In the light of the recent report on research on children, the need to include up-to-date advice on the position of minors in research trials is also very much in my mind.

As things stand, all the available guidelines recognise the problems involved in considering research on children. However, there is a wide range of views about the type of research of which children might ethically be the subject and on questions about who can consent to a child's involvement in a research project. The Medical Research Council's advice issued in 1962 said:

"The situation in respect of minors (and mentally subnormal or mentally disordered persons) is of particular difficulty. In the strict view of the law parents and guardians of minors cannot give consent on their behalf to any procedures which are of no particular benefit to them and which may carry some risk of harm. Whilst English law does not fix any arbitrary age in this context, it may safely be assumed that the Courts will not regard a child of 12 years or under (or 14 years or under for boys in Scotland) as having the capacity to consent to any procedure which may involve him in an injury. Above this age the reality of any purported consent which may have been obtained is a question of fact as with an adult the evidence would, if necessary, have to show that irrespective of age the person concerned fully understood the implications to himself of the procedures to which he was consenting.

Even when true consent has been given by a minor (or a mentally subnormal or mentally disordered person) consideration of ethics and prudence still require that, if possible, the assent of parents or guardians or relatives, as the case may be, should be obtained.

Investigations that are of no direct benefit to the individual require, therefore, that his true consent to them shall be explicitly obtained. After adequate explanation, the consent of an adult of sound mind and understanding can be relied upon to be true consent. In the case of children and young persons the question of whether purported consent as true consent would in each case depend upon facts such as the age, intelligence, situation and character of the subject and nature of the investigations".

There can be no question of purported consent in relation to premature babies.

That was the MRC's statement of the position in 1962. But legal advice coming to me now talks in terms of the maturity and degree of understanding that the young person demonstrates — a somewhat different concept. The implications of the House of Lords' judgment in the Gillick case will have some relevance in relation to consent for research, but clearly not in the context of premature babies. As a non-lawyer, I am straying on to dangerous ground and I shall return to the broader approach.

The World Health Organisation has accepted that the participation of children in research is indispensible for research on diseases of childhood and conditions to which children are particularly susceptible. It suggests that it is acceptable to allow children to participate in projects aimed at gaining knowledge on physiological or pathological conditions peculiar to infancy and childhood. The British Paediatric Association guidelines issued in 1980 assume that research which involves a child but is of no benefit to that child is not necessarily either unethical or illegal.

The Institute of Medical Ethics report suggests that the position should now be that the parent may consent to a research procedure if, when judged objectively, any risk involved in the research procedure is so small that it would not be against the child's interest to be exposed to that risk. It recommends that further efforts should be made to develop scales quantifying risk and benefit, as my hon. Friend said.

In an area which is governed by common law, and in the absence of any decided cases on the subject, it is not possible to be certain about how the courts would currently respond to this question. However, in view of the evident confusion that exists, I am sure that this must be carefully considered and these matters are included in the review of existing guidance I referred to a moment or two ago.

However, I receive very clear legal advice that, except in an emergency, a doctor may not lawfully give treatment which involves touching a person without that person's consent. And consent is valid only if it is given voluntarily by the person who has the capacity to consent and after appropriate information has been given to enable the decision of consent to be made. If a doctor fails to obtain a valid consent he will commit the tort and crime of battery and may also incur liability in negligence. It would also lay the doctor open to disciplinary action by the General Medical Council.

Early-day motion 916 of which my hon. Friends are cosponsors also refers to the subject of this debate. It suggests that the existing law is inadequate in this respect. However, I hope that what I have just said makes it clear that the law as it currently stands would not sanction experiments on young babies without their parents' knowledge or consent.

Let me make it quite clear that research on young children should take place only in well understood and properly authorised circumstances. The Institute of Medical Ethics working party was not, I understand, set up because the institute had any specific reason to believe that breaches of existing guidelines or ethical standards were taking place. It has helped to identify the very real ethical difficulties which can confront researchers in undertaking research on children and in obtaining parental consent to research on young babies.

Let there be no doubt about the widespread public concern that would be aroused if investigators were to develop an inflated sense of the importance of research and place this above the rights of children and their parents. Let me quote again from the 1962 report of the Medical Research Council:

"It should be clearly understood that the possibility or probability that a particular investigation will be of benefit to humanity or to posterity would afford no defence in the event of legal proceedings. The individual has rights that the law protects and nobody can infringe those rights for the public good. In investigations of this type it is, therefore, always necessary to ensure that the true consent of the subject is explicitly obtained."

I hope that this short debate will have helped to clarify some of the confusion that undoubtedly exists. I also hope that the consideration that I have said is being carried out will help to put these matters on to a better and proper footing.

Reference was made to legislation dealing with the Warnock report and to experiments on the human embryo. It is appropriate for me to say again that on the crucial issue of experiments on human embryos the Government's position, as has been stated very many times, is one of neutrality and that legislation on these matters will be introduced by the Government as soon as practicable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.