I have to announce to the House that because of the great interest in this subject I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 11.30 am and 1 pm. As we have a statement today, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the need for brevity.

The basis for our debate on the policing of London is the Commissioner's annual report for 1991–92, which provides a comprehensive account of the work of the Metropolitan police service, the successes that it has achieved and the difficulties that it has encountered.

This is the last report to be made by Sir Peter Imbert, who will retire from his post as Commissioner on 31 January 1993. I am very glad to be able to announce that the Queen has appointed Paul Condon, the present chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter.

As Sir Peter makes clear in his report, he inherited from Sir Kenneth Newman a service that had decentralised operational decision making to areas and divisions, but Sir Peter recognised that cultural changes needed to be made if organisational changes were to be effective. The Plus programme resulted, with a complete reappraisal of the fundamental purpose of the service. The statement of common purpose and values was an early part of the process, which has continued through a series of initiatives, including, in February this year, the publication of the first five-year corporate strategy.

Those developments in the leadership and management of the service have placed the Metropolitan police in the forefront of the moves to develop quality of service as the main aim for the police throughout England and Wales.

Against that background, I suspect that Mr. Condon, as the new Commissioner, would agree with me that he has a hard act to follow, but he will be able to build on the firm foundations that Sir Peter has laid. The present Commissioner, who is admirably supported by his deputy and the rest of his top management team, has focused the attention of the Metropolitan police on the high standard of service that their officers must provide to maintain the trust that must exist between the police and the community. In my judgment, Paul Condon has shown the same commitment to similar ideals in his management of the Kent constabulary, where he has been hugely successful. I have no doubt that under his leadership the Metropolitan police will continue to make significant improvements in their relationship with the public and in their effectiveness in meeting the ever-rising demands placed on them. Paul Condon will prove to be a very forceful and dynamic successor to a distinguished Commissioner.

Part of the foundation on which Mr. Condon will be able to build are the strategic intentions of the Metropolitan police set out in the corporate strategy to which I have just referred. This reflects the commitment to increase consultation with the public and their representatives, to inform and to respond to their views. The Metropolitan police have therefore been moving towards a borough-based service, with divisional boundaries aligned to the London boroughs. This complements the service's move to sector policing.

Borough-based policing will make the consultative arrangements established under section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 more effective and will enable the police to work more closely with borough authorities and community groups. There are now 41 consultative groups in the Metropolitan police district, and all 35 London boroughs have functioning consultative groups. This now includes the direct involvement of Hackney borough council.

There are signs that that is contributing to improved relations between the police and the community in the borough. I regret to say that Lambeth is now the only borough where councillors are not involved, although at least we have moved to the stage where meetings of the consultative group are being held in the town hall. I hope that councillors in Lambeth will soon make use of the opportunities which their colleagues elsewhere in London, of all parties, have found available.

There was a time when there was a tradition among the left of the Labour movement in London of positive hostility towards the police. As the Labour party has gone through a process of mild reconstruction, I think that I see that tradition vanishing slightly, and I hope that the last traces will disappear in Lambeth.

I think that the Secretary of State slightly underestimates the speedy move taking place at the moment towards Lambeth becoming officially part of the police consultative committee. I am president of the consultative committee, and the Members of Parliament involve themselves. Next week, there will be a top-level meeting between all chief superintendents, the district commissioner and the leader of the council. Quick moves are being made now, and I hope that we shall move forward in Lambeth to ensure that the police service is responsive to the people there, and that our borough is involved in the process.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sure that all three Members of Parliament from the borough have been encouraging the council to develop proper links with the police. I am sure that the Metropolitan police, for their part, will respond by trying to build a proper relationship and to be better informed about the views of the borough and the style of policing required there.

I have been impressed by the obvious wish of the police service to develop a more open approach to its public responsibilities—the Plus programme is a good example of the work that has been done. All that came before our citizens charter initiative, but the Plus programme and the citizens charter are complementary and embrace many of the same principles—consultation with the public, openness and accountability, and the achievement and publication of standards of service.

The charter and the police service's quality of service initiative emphasise the importance of measuring performance and service delivery in so far as that is possible. After all, how can the police or the public know what quality of service is being offered if there are no means of measuring and comparing one part of the service and another? The standard of service will not in the end be measured by impressions, by anecdotes or by our individual personal experience. It is possible to devise clear and precise indicators that accurately measure the services provided and which way they are moving with regard to quality.

The Audit Commission, following the remit given to it by the Local Government Act 1991, has now published a formal consultation document containing proposals for performance indicators for policing. Those were prepared after consultation with the police service and Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.

I am anxious that when we introduce performance indicators as a management tool they will be a useful way of measuring standards of performance which mean something to the public and to the average policeman. By the end of this financial year, a set of core indicators will be in place. They will be applied from the beginning of 1993, leading in 1994 to the publication of force performance in aspects which we will all be able to understand and appreciate, such as the time of response to emergencies, crime rates and detection, the composition of the police force—specifically, the numbers of police officers who are women or who are members of ethnic minorities—and complaints against the police, as well as the cost of providing a police service.

All that published information and performance indicator information made available to us will play an important part in stimulating an informed and intelligent dialogue about the police, setting out much more clearly than before what the police can reasonably be expected to achieve. I have made it clear that I expect the Metropolitan police to provide the same information as the other police forces in the country, and I shall ensure that it is all published.

The Met is, of course, only one force within the police service in England and Wales, although it is by far the largest. I should briefly say something about broader issues affecting the police service generally, which I shall be considering over the coming months and which, as I shall explain, will reflect upon the Met as well.

I shall look with especial care at the way in which police authorities work. They should be a key influence on the style of policing, because it is their job to determine, with the chief constable, how the funds available should be deployed locally. It is to the policy authority that the chief constable should be primarily accountable. At present, there is a strange balance between the local powers of a police authority and my central powers in the Home Office. I have total power over the size of the establishment —the number of uniformed officers—in each police force throughout the country and direct powers over capital allocations. On the other hand, some aspects are very decentralised under the control of the policy authority, and in different parts of the country there is a varying relationship between the authority, with its responsibilities, and the chief constable with his responsibility for operational matters.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I shall give way soon.

It is time to take a fresh look at my own powers and at the role and composition of police authorities, and to come to judgments about responsibilities and accountability. Chief constables should be clearly responsible for managing their forces effectively in the light of local needs. I expect them to be called to account by the police authorities, and on some issues by the Home Secretary, on how they do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Met?"]

I am about to relate that point to London.

In reviewing the role of police authorities, of course that has implications for the very different sort of police authority which we have in London. In the rest of the country, we have a tripartite system—Home Secretary, local police authority and chief officer of police. In London, we have what I suppose could be called a bipartite authority; the Home Secretary acts in effect as the police authority. Some features of the present structure for London may be right. There are bound to be some differences in the oversight of the capital city's policing compared with that of provincial forces.

rose—

I was about to say that, when I consider the arrangements for police authorities across the country and the proper accountability of provincial forces, I shall certainly not rule out the present arrangements for the Met and I shall want to see to what extent any measures that I may introduce in the rest of the country could usefully be applied or adapted to the Met and to London.

Many of us are puzzled by what the Home Secretary has been saying, because we do not have a police authority in London. This is supposed to be the half day in the year when there is some accountability. If the Home Secretary is telling the House that what happens is unsatisfactory. and that there should be some accountability through a local elected authority, that is welcome. We have been putting that idea to the House for 10 or 12 years. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make himself clear? Will London have some form of elected authority for policing? That is what many people feel that it needs.

The straight answer to that question is no. I do not agree.

Why not?

We have just heard about the welcome progress being made in Lambeth towards having a dialogue with the police and being prepared to allow a consultative committee to meet in the town hall, but there have been times when I have doubted whether Lambeth was quite ready for self-government. It is improving all the time, but I do not think that we are yet ready to have an elected police authority for the Met. What I said was carefully phrased: I am undertaking a review of the responsibilities of police authorities and the accountability of chief constables to their police authorities, and I do not rule out the possibility of change in the Met. However, I was certainly not announcing a move to an elected authority. I propose that during the debate hon. Members give their views on the police authority—

We have been doing that for a decade.

Yes, hon. Members have been doing that, and some have been putting forward the idea of the London branch of the Labour party that there should be an elected authority to share the running of the police with the Commissioner. I am not instantly attracted to that idea.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of the people of London were delighted when the Greater London council was abolished and that in subsequent elections they have confirmed their faith in the party which got rid of it? They do not want to see it reappear under any guise.

Yes. My one regret about the GLC was that we delayed so long before abolishing that totally ridiculous body. I certainly would not wish to see any feature of it being revived.

Get on with it.

rose—

I shall indeed get on with it, but first I shall give way to the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.

With all due respect, it is a bit much for the Home Secretary to put that teaser into his speech and then refuse to answer questions about it. I am not sure whether we are getting a ministerial statement. I understand—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me whether I am right—that he is making two points, the first of which is that he will review the procedures for police authorities throughout the country but that he will want to keep some form of elected police authorities in the rest of the country. Secondly, he seems to be saying that he wants to examine whether he will bring the metropolitan arrangements into line with those for the rest of the country. Is that right or not? If that second point is right, will he tell us what range and type of elected authority he is considering for London?

Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has done what his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) did, which is to rephrase and paraphrase my suggestions. All I said was that I was working inside the Home Office on the role of police authorities, the extent to which they discharge their present responsibilities, the extent to which the chief constable is properly accountable to them and the extent to which the system is working in the best way to produce a clear policy for policing. I wanted to tell the House that that was under way, as I have said publicly, so that I could invite the views of others. I have no doubt that the Labour party and chief constables have views on the role and composition of the pace authorities, so I am flagging the fact that I am considering those matters and, no doubt, will in due course come to conclusions. I will welcome proposals from others.

The idea that I am making a statement announcing that I am instantly changing the nature of police authorities in London or in the rest of the country is wrong. I look forward to hearing in due course the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on police authorities.

We should have the matter cleared up a little. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary has come to an instant view. I had always understood that his party had ruled out entirely any change in the arrangements whereby the Home Secretary has direct responsibility for the police in London. Is he saying to us that he is prepared at least to consider that the position will change and that there may be some form of police authority for London? That is not an unreasonable question.

What I said was as plain as a pikestaff. I said that I was considering the role of police authorities, and, while I do that, I do not rule out thinking about the arrangements in London. At present, I am wholly satisfied with my role as the police authority in London. I will now proceed, if I am allowed to, to discharge that responsibility by making progress in the debate.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

No. I want to move on to the subject of sector policing which is designed to enable the service to respond more closely to the needs of the community. It is now firmly in place in many divisions and will be introduced throughout the Metropolitan police district by the end of March 1993. Groups from all sectors of the community have been involved with the police in developing effective sector policing, and benefits can already be seen in the improved links with local communities.

The service recognises that it must be able to evaluate any improvements that are being made in the quality of service provided and the Metropolitan police are committed to developing and extending the use of performance indicators.

In 1991, the police have been trialling customer satisfaction surveys in part of the Metropolitan police district and, from 1 January 1992, the surveys have been introduced in all divisions. The surveys seek the views of the victims of crime, road traffic accident victims and even those who call at police stations for a variety of purposes. In most police stations in London, one now finds questionnaires on the counter which ask people to make comments about the service provided by the police in the course of their call. I am glad to say that early returns show that there is a high level of satisfaction among those completing the questionnaires with the quality of service provided to victims.

Those initiatives should not be seen in isolation from other work being done to ensure that we have a police service that can operate more effectively than ever before. They show the commitment by the police to demonstrating their desire to raise the quality of service to the public and I seek to reinforce that.

I see the work being undertaken by Sir Patrick Sheehy's inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards as part of a whole. The inquiry is considering rank structure, pay, allowances and other rewards, and relevant aspects of conditions of service. Recommendations will be made on what changes, if any, should be made to ranks, roles and rewards, and whether additional flexibilities are required with regard to pay and related matters.

I have made it clear that I expect the inquiry to have regard to the different circumstances in which police officers have to carry out their duties in different parts of the United Kingdom. I expect the inquiry to consider especially the responsibilities of the Metropolitan police.

I cannot understand the logic of why the Home Secretary has excluded from the Sheehy inquiry the much-valued and respected British Transport police and the Royal Parks constabulary who have an increasing role in the metropolis. On 1 January, they will take over responsibility for Hyde park, in addition to their other duties. It is an unnecessary affront to those police officers that they should have been excluded from the Sheehy inquiry, which we have not been able to debate in the House because of the inordinate and indefensibly long summer recess.

I am glad to make it clear that their exclusion is not regarded as an affront to those police services. I do not regard those services as second-class services. They are at the front rank of police services in the country. The reason why I excluded them and others who might have been included was simply to make the inquiry manageable and able to deliver its report in a reasonable time. If one opens up questions of pay and rewards in any organisation, it causes great uncertainties as everyone gives their views and waits to see what will be arrived at. To sustain the high morale necessary in the police service, the inquiry should not be an extended and intractable process; it should be completed in a reasonable time.

I told Sir Patrick that I would like his inquiry to make recommendations by May next year. If the inquiry had investigated other police forces, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggests, the timetable would not have been practicable. The inquiry is obviously aware of the particular problems of people such as the Royal Parks constabulary and I have no doubt that the recommendations of Sir Patrick's team will be studied by those responsible for those police forces and will have some bearing on them.

I have asked Sir Patrick to bear in mind the particular responsibilities of the Metropolitan police. We all realise that policing in the capital has its own problems. I am sure that he will do so.

Each year there is a demand for more police officers. I referred earlier to two developments: the publication of the first five-year corporate strategy and the measurement of performance and service delivery. I regard the aims of the corporate strategy and the information about measurements of performance as critical in establishing the level of resources and manpower needed to deliver a service that meets the needs of the people of London at an acceptable cost.

The manpower position is that the Metropolitan police are now recruiting up to their authorised establishment and there are now more than 28,000 police officers, supported by 14,500 civil staff and 1,700 traffic wardens. Through a vigorous programme of civilianisation, more police officers have been released and made available for policing duties—operational duties. Some 1,326 posts have already been civilianised and a further 520 are planned this year. That means that there are now more than 6,000 more operational police officers in London than there were in 1979. There are 3,762 female officers and 580 from ethnic minority groups.

The Metropolitan police have begun a pilot part-time working scheme, I am glad to say, to provide greater flexibility, especially for working parents. As new shift patterns develop, the benefits of allowing part-time working become more apparent, especially when new arrangements such as sector policing place the emphasise on meeting needs rather than forcing them into the straitjacket of the relief system.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I want to get on, because we are having timed speeches in this debate. I do not want my speech to take too high a proportion of the time, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sedgefield agrees.

We should recognise also the valuable contribution made by the 1,440 members of the Metropolitan special constabulary, of whom 186 officers, or 12 per cent., come from ethnic minority groups. Between them, they performed more than 300,000 hours of operational duties in 1991.

Does the Home Secretary recognise, in dealing with the role and numbers of police officers, that, increasingly in the capital and certainly in my borough, in the night hours the police are required to perform what is essentially a social services function in relation to not only battered women but increasingly, sadly, children? What steps does he propose to take better to equip them and to assist them in performing a difficult function which the social services should carry out if they were properly funded?

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are right. The demands placed on policing cover a wide range and go well beyond the investigation of straightforward crime. I am glad to say that on my visits to police stations I now frequently encounter officers who are specialising in domestic violence cases. I am sure that the police find increased numbers of child abuse cases. Again, their training and focus of operations are turning to such cases. I am sure that the process will continue under the new Commissioner and that the style of policing will be adapted to the varied demands that are made on the police nowadays.

There are, of course, huge pressures on the social services. I referred to the hugely increased level of resources available to the police over the past decade. That is matched by large increases in the resources available to social services departments, although demands in those areas always increase. Each year, the demands that we make on the police continue to grow. We expect them to work in a hostile environment, and rely on them to maintain the peace on our streets so that the people of London can live their lives without fear. The Commissioner rightly regards that duty as fundamental to his policing strategy.

There is a personal cost in all this. Since our debate 12 months ago, two officers have been murdered—Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison. Both acted in the highest traditions of the service, putting their duty before their own safety. Each day, officers in all parts of London are putting themselves at risk. Each day, an average of eight officers are assaulted, of whom nearly a quarter are placed on the sick list. Every day, a further 23 officers will be injured on duty, of whom six will be taken off duty as a result.

Recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district increased by 11 per cent. in 1991–92 to 945,300 reported incidents. It is worth recording the fact that the majority of those crimes were against property, with about a quarter of all recorded crime involving theft of and from vehicles. Twenty-one per cent. of crimes are burglaries. The total number of burglaries was 194,900, and in nearly 30 per cent. of cases, the perpetrator was able to walk into the property without needing to make a forced entry—something that I find rather extraordinary. Clearly the tradition of leaving the house unlocked is not confined to rural villages. We are now stressing the importance of taking crime prevention precautions to protect cars, and we should also stress the need to protect property.

Recorded crime is increasing at a slower rate in London than elsewhere—a state of affairs that has been maintained for a number of years. Offences of violence against the person remain only a small part of all recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district, and sexual offences remain at less than 1 per cent. of all notifiable offences.

A number of initiatives show that the dedication of police to specific areas of crime, with public support, can have a dramatic effect on levels of crime. I am impressed by Operation Bumblebee, which has continued to have an impact on residential burglaries in north London, where the increase of 2 per cent. compares with a force average of 11 per cent. and a national figure of 18 per cent.

Since the start of the campaign in 1991, there have been more than 3,300 arrests for burglary in north London. Support in reporting suspicious persons loitering in residential areas has greatly helped and more than 51 per cent. of the arrests were made as a result of calls from the public. Operation Bumblebee has been such a success that it has now been extended to south and south-west London.

I have pointed out that theft of cars and from cars accounts for 25 per cent. of recorded crime in London. The Metropolitan police are involved in a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the problem, and divisional crime prevention officers are encouraged to get involved with local prevention activities.

More than 20,000 Londoners are involved in "Vehicle Watch", a scheme whereby participating motorists may indicate to the police by means of distinctive stickers that their cars will not normally be on the road late at night. Labelled cars which are seen during the voluntarily established curfew period may be stopped and checked. The service is also supporting the secured car parks scheme which encourages operators and users to pay attention to the security of car parks, where about 20 per cent. of car crime takes place.

A bogus callers campaign has given extensive publicity to warning people about the dangers of callers posing as officials from the utilities, tricking their way into a house and stealing money or goods while the occupant. is distracted. So far, nearly 3,000 offences have been cleared up in the fight against this scourge—a 58 per cent. increase. The campaign is now being extended across a wider area of London.

There is a tradition of community-based policing in London and I believe that sector policing will build on experience and increase the opportunities for officers to work in partnership with the community. It will also increase the opportunities for external agencies, local authority departments and community groups to work closely with the police.

The partnership approach to crime prevention is of particular importance for the inner cities where high crime levels, fear of crime and social deprivation seriously affect the quality of life. The police have been working closely with local authorities, voluntary agencies and residents through the Department of the Environment's city action and urban programme which has provided central funding to tackle some of the underlying factors which influence crime. This has helped with the refurbishment of estates in Enfield and Deptford: lock-fitting schemes for the elderly and vulnerable groups in Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham; and lighting improvements in Kensington and Chelsea.

The Department of Trade and Industry's task forces also continue to play a very important role. They and city action teams have helped in a wide range of improvements ranging from increased security, to youth activities and employment opportunities.

The service now has 40 crime prevention design advisers—one for each borough—who are tasked with influencing the way in which car parks, subways, leisure centres, housing and so forth are designed so that crime is designed out and improvements are made to the whole environment.

The number of racial attacks continues to be a matter of serious concern to everyone and, in the corporate strategy, the Commissioner has committed the service to supporting initiatives to respond to attacks upon, and harassment of, all minority groups. The service has introduced a new procedure for recording all incidents in which there is any suspicion, however slight, of racial motivation. I am glad to say that that has resulted in an increase in the number of incidents reported—from 2,908 in 1990 to 3,373 in 1991. That could indicate an increase in the number of racially motivated attacks, although I very much hope that it does not. It probably signifies the increased willingness of victims to come forward and report such incidents to the police, and their increased confidence in doing so.

Will the Home Secretary comment on the case of my constituent, Mr. Natt, who was arrested, then physically abused and racially abused in the most outrageous manner? There is no dispute about the facts, because Mr. Natt happened to have a recorder in his pocket, as the Home Secretary knows. Those responsible were fined or one day's pay was stopped. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? Would the Home Secretary care to apologise to Mr. Natt for that behaviour?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not wholly satisfactory. I hope that the House will bear it in mind that I do not have the facts in front of me, but my recollection is that Mr. Natt was convicted of assaulting a police officer, and that it was after his arrest that that unfortunate incident took place. It should not have taken place.

Like many other people, I heard the tape recording on the radio. It appears that the officers admitted the disciplinary offence, and the matter was dealt with locally, as a result of which the full facts were not known. I do not think that those who imposed the penalty of one day's loss of pay had heard the tape recording. I have appeared on a platform with the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, who also expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case. I repeat that I wholly agree with him. Such incidents are serious disciplinary matters, and I am sure that both the present and the new Commissioners will ensure that they are regarded as such throughout the Metropolitan police service.

I am happy to report—admittedly, somewhat hastily because time is pressing—on a number of the achievements of the Metropolitan police in 1991 and the first part of 1992. There is a sense in London that the Metropolitan police are making progress. There is increasing confidence in the effectiveness of policing in the capital and in the much better style of service being delivered.

Those achievements have been made in partnership with the people of London. Policing policy is emphatically not a matter for the police service alone. The strong tradition of policing by consent is important, and partnership between the police and the community that they serve is prospering.

The Commissioner and I are determined that, through the initiatives being taken both within the Metropolitan police and nationally, the force should provide an even better service to the people of London, and even better value for money. Sir Peter Imbert has provided an extremely firm foundation for future achievement. From February next year, we shall have a new and enthusiastic Commissioner to continue that work, and I believe that the public of London will give him, and all his force, their wholehearted support.

The purpose of the debate is to review the operation of the Metropolitan police over the year and to analyse with care the current state of the capital's policing. We welcome the appointment of the new Commissioner, Mr. Paul Condon, whose first challenge will be to prevent the number of crimes in London passing the 1 million mark this year, for the first time in the capital's history.

The challenge for the Government is not to pass the buck to the Commissioner, but to honour their promise to cut crime with the necessary action. Mr. Condon is highly regarded. He is experienced with the work of the Metropolitan police. Above all, perhaps, he can be relied upon to build on what are acknowledged as the achievements of the current Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, and of his deputy John Smith who I believe has played a very big part in the development of the Metropolitan police over the past few years.

Sir Peter Imbert arrived at a time when, according to chief inspector of constabulary Sir John Woodcock a few days ago, the problems in the Met had "come close to disaster." Sir Peter had the intelligence to realise that the Met had to change and the vigour and clarity of purpose to carry that through. However, the background of rising crime against which the changes in the Met have been carried through has not improved. In summary, as with so much else in London and the rest of the country, crime has become worse. However, at least it is possible to see the beginning of a clearer and better framework for the future.

The rise in crime has been rapid and seemingly inexorable. As the Secretary of State said, there was an 11 per cent. increase in notifiable offences last year. As I have said, it is possible that notifiable offences will pass the 1 million mark this year. Robberies have increased 21 per cent. Thefts are up 11 per cent., burglary up 10 per cent. and criminal damage up 12 per cent. None of that takes account of the numerous, but unquantifiable examples of harassment, abuse and petty vandalism which have become part of the daily lives of many Londoners. A few weeks ago I read a survey in an Islington local paper which found that more than half the women on a local housing estate would not use public transport at night for fear of being attacked and that an even larger number were afraid to walk down local streets after dark. Young people are routinely subjected to threats and assault and some elderly people are afraid to venture outside their doors or even to stay inside.

That situation is wholly unacceptable. The right of people to go about their business free from the threat of crime is an essential part of the civil liberties of this country and it is currently under threat.

My hon. Friend has clearly read that survey with some care. Is he aware that a large number of the people who are afraid to go out at night or who have been attacked on the streets at night, particularly bearing in mind racial and sexual attacks, feel that there is no point in reporting such incidents to the police? That is one of the problems with the reporting of crime statistics in surveys and the statistics produced by the Metropolitan police. There is a problem in terms of the need to increase people's confidence in the ability of the police to do something about such attacks.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People's confidence to come forward to the police about such attacks is an essential element in being able to curb them. Partly because of the changes that have taken place in the Met over the past few years, I hope that people will feel confident and do that. Building up that confidence over time is essential so that they can enjoy the freedom from such attacks that they should be able to enjoy.

Will the hon. Gentleman please put his comments in context? Although it is right to refer to fears when those fears are genuine and justified, one section at least of London's transport has shown a dramatic reduction in crime. That section is London Underground. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the management and staff of London Underground for their work with cameras and staff training to reduce crime on the underground which has reassured the travelling public.

I am delighted to do that and I welcome the changes. The British Transport police have been working very hard to ensure that that is the case, and that is perhaps one reason why they should be involved more closely in some of the consultations.

There was an air of complacency about the Home Secretary's speech. Of course the Met are trying hard to curb crime and in some areas they are being successful. I shall refer to those in a moment because it is important to balance the areas of success with the problems.

The figure which truly astonishes me—this may be merely the novelty of the position that I hold—is that the clear-up rate is still less than one in five. In fact., the clear-up rate is one in 10 for burglaries. We have a very long way to go. Some people might say, and the Home Secretary by implication hinted, that burglary and crimes against property are not in the same league as violent crime against the person. However, anyone who has suffered a burglary is aware that it is more than just the fact that one's home has been broken into: it is an invasion of what should be the sanctity of someone's home. An understanding of that is necessary if we are to realise the seriousness of the situation.

The police themselves do not escape the personal consequences of crime. It is worth recording that 12,000 officers were injured while on duty. Some 3,600 were injured as a result of assaults, 700 or more of them so seriously that they were off work. That is appalling and we must work very hard on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend right down the line about the fact that policemen are at risk. That was another area of complacency in the Home Secretary's speech. He moved on very quickly after referring to Sergeant Alan King, who was stabbed. We all agreed with his comments, but nothing has been done to improve the protection of the police against knife attacks. The Met has carried out a study into body armour. but nothing has been done and I understand that many policemen are having to buy such armour privately. Should not the Home Secretary have produced proper proposals to give policemen more protection against such attacks?

I entirely agree that such attacks are to be deplored and I hope that the Home Secretary has heard what my hon. Friend said about measures to deal with them. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the bravery of Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison who died on active service last year. We remember them with gratitude and offer our heartfelt condolences to their families.

Working parties continually consider the protection and equipment which should be given to the police and all the police associations are involved. I want to make it clear that we all agree that policemen are seriously at risk all the time in London. That is why we do not neglect the constant problem of reviewing the protection available and we shall continue to do that.

I thank the Home Secretary for that intervention. He will be aware of the strong feelings on all sides of the House about the position of policemen.

As well as the normal duties of policing, the Met has been responsible for anti-terrorism work. That has been particularly difficult with the recent spate of bomb attacks by the IRA, which have been carried out with a total and callous disregard for the human casualties which have resulted and will inevitably result from such activities. The Opposition treat the IRA's recent attempts to shift the blame on to the police for not heeding warnings which in any event are often confused and misleading with complete and utter contempt.

Certain problems are especially acute in the capital. I was astonished to learn that 75 per cent. of the illicit drugs market is in the capital. That must be a matter of huge concern.

Under Sir Peter's leadership, the Met has developed considerably in the past few years. His two clear achievements have been the Plus programme and the introduction of sector policing. It is easy to dismiss the Plus programme as a series of platitudes and I do not hope, as the Secretary of State did, that it is to be equated with the citizens charter.

The Plus programme has been effective in two ways. First, it has carried through organisational changes which have benefited the force. Secondly, it has changed the ethos of the service. The very acts of publishing a statement of common purpose and values, holding seminars on it that each of the 44,000 staff has attended and holding it up as a standard against which the service is content to be judged affect and change the culture of the force.

It is as well to recognise that some of the criticisms about the police in London and their ethos and culture are by no means confined to those on the fringe. Sir John Woodcock, in his address to an international conference on crime a few weeks ago, made it clear that criticism of the police had gained increasing currency among all sections of the community and that it was therefore absolutely necessary that a change in ethos and culture should take place.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the terms of police manpower and the cost to the taxpayer of demonstrations. [Interruption.] This is important. There are costs in taking police off their normal duties to police the miners' rally last Wednesday and next Sunday's rally. This Sunday, police will lose time off and work overtime or be taken off their normal duties to police unnecessary demonstrations.

That is an absurd point. [Interruption.] Having intervened on me, the hon. Gentleman might at least listen to the reply. Of course they police demonstrations. They also police football matches. There is also activity in relation to the royal family. Unless one is suggesting that all those activities should be banned, they are something that the Metropolitan police will do.

In the end, if there is a lack of confidence in the police, that is not just bad in itself: it affects the efficiency of policing because it disturbs the relationship of confidence between the public and the police. That point has been made by some of my hon. Friends. If there is no confidence in the police and if any section of the public feel that they cannot approach the police with confidence, policing in the capital is likely to be less effective and detection rates are likely to be lower.

We know, for example, that there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the number of reported offences of rape. In a bizarre way, that can be treated in one sense as implying that, probably, more people are now willing to report the offence of rape than they were before. Also, it means that in the previous few years thousands of people have not reported the offence because they did not have confidence. That is not a matter for complacency. We must realise that there is still an immense distance to go in increasing the confidence which must exist for effective policing.

There are other ways, too, in which the force is changing. The Home Secretary mentioned sector policing. That should be fully in operation by April 1993. Again, the purpose is to bring policing closer to the local community. However, the Plus programme and sector policing are examples of what has been the fairly central shift in policing, not in government necessarily but within the police force itself in the past few years. There has been an abandonment of the notion of the police as sole custodians of policy and responsibility, and the adoption of notions of partnership based on shared responsibility. That concept is recognised by many police forces throughout the country. We must build upon that base and ask the Government whether the concept of partnership in the community—to which they pay lip service—is actually replicated in their arrangements for how policing is done. For instance, the police cannot earn the respect of young people unless they have the co-operation of schools and teachers. Members of one of the local London authorities talked about truancy rates the other day. At any given time thousands of children in the capital city may be engaged in serious truancy every school day. That is appalling and it will require co-operation between education authorities and the police.

Local business will often know better how to take crime prevention measures if it is involved with the police in formulating them. The voluntary sector, the youth service and local authorities have a vital part to play in reinforcing the community's ability to police itself. In February, the National Audit Office produced a study about reducing crime in London. It examined partnership initiatives in five of the 69 divisions. It found that there had been considerable success but that much more needed to be done. The programme is in its infancy, but what was not doubted at all by the National Audit Office was the clear conclusion that better partnership—the involvement of local people in policing—works, and that where proper evaluation takes place it is seen to work.

The Commissioner's report draws attention to some of the best programmes of crime prevention in the capital. Apparently there are now 40 crime prevention design advisers to help in the design of estates to try to screen out criminal activity. Some of the best schemes are at Chalk Hill estate in Brent and North Peckham estate in Southwark, where there has been a combination of policing initiatives and local authority improvements with the full co-operation of the local authority.

Partnership in the community then influences other considerations of policing policy. The Home Secretary spoke of the mix of ethnic minority police officers and how it had risen, but the proportion is still very low compared with what it needs to be. That, again, is bound to affect the confidence of the ethnic community in the police and the reporting and assisting in the detection of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will deal with that matter in slightly greater detail. She will aslo deal with racial attacks in London. Those matters are still deeply serious and there is growing evidence that on certain estates in London such attacks are increasing.

John Smith, who is the deputy commissioner— [Interruption.] John Smith is an excellent name. At the recent Partnership in Action conference, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police said:

"There are many fine examples of individual initiatives undertaken separately by police, voluntary agencies, and local authorities. But if they were to be carried out simultaneously, as part of an overall strategy, I am quite certain they would have even greater impact, and longer lasting improvements would be achieved."

He made that comment shortly after dealing with the Morgan report, which was commissioned by the Home Office and entitled, "Safer communities, Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". The body convened by the Home Office was charged with preparing the report, and it did so. Its findings were quite clear—that there had to be much greater involvement of local authorities in crime prevention work, that partnership is what would work and would reduce crime, and that there was evidence that, where those elements of partnership were present, crime was falling.

Ministers have still not responded to the Morgan report on crime prevention. It is their own report and it was published, I believe, in August 1991. We were told in the Metropolitan police debate last year that the reason for delay was that consultations were being carried out. I hope that we shall get some sort of answer today, at least from the junior Minister, if not from the Home Secretary, on the Government's attitude to the Morgan report. I suspect that the reason why the report has not been responded to is that its conclusion—that local authorities have a vital role in crime prevention—was unpalatable to the Conservative party.

Does that not emphasise the tantalising half-revelation that the Home Secretary gave? Although accountability to public authorities is important—there is a gap in London—such organs of statutory accountability also provide for information and conversation, which fulfil the very partnership that my hon. Friend is talking about. The Home Secretary not only gave no intimation of whether the role of elected and responsible police authorities in the rest of the country might be changed drastically in one way or another, but in respect of London it was made just a tail-end remark. Does that not mean that his speech reflected much less responsibility than that office has?

I agree, and I will deal with that point in a moment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that some of the best responses to the Morgan report were from London Labour authorities? In the London borough of Hackney, the council made a joint response with the police, whereas, surprisingly, in the London borough of Wandsworth the council made a separate response from the police.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that piece of information, which undoubtedly tells us a great deal.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the record of several London local authorities is such that we do not want them to have anything to do with law enforcement? Leading members of the London Labour party incite others to break the law. The thought of their being in charge of the police force is unacceptable. We read in the Daily Mail today how dotty Haringey council is. It could not run a booze-up in a brewery.

I seem to remember that the Daily Mail told us that we would have an economic recovery following 9 April, so it is not the best source. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's strictures on Labour authorities that he is attacking the police for co-operating with Hackney council in making a joint response to the Morgan report. The hon. Gentleman's bigotry is out of date.

The nub of the argument is that to accept that partnership is the way forward, that there should be policing in the community and that we require a multi-agency approach, throws into sharp relief questions about the best way of allowing local people to have an input in a proper elected police authority for London.

I was uncertain exactly what the Home Secretary said about partnership in his speech today. If he will not take it amiss, I appreciate that he has not read the Maastricht treaty, but I did not realise until I heard him this morning that he had not even read his own speech. He said that he intended to take a fresh look at the matter and seemed to imply that he was prepared to bring some semblance of uniformity to the arrangements outside and inside London. That is entirely right, provided that there is proper local accountability.

The argument for a proper police authority for London is now much stronger on the grounds not only of local democracy but of effective policing. If the consensus behind partnership in the community is correct, and if the Home Secretary believes what was written for him, surely a vital part of such a partnership is the full involvement of people through a proper elected authority which, of course, is what happens outside London. Local people play a valuable role in my police authority in county Durham. There is no question of a battle between police and local authorities. The police recognise that community involvement provides a focus for local feeling and a channel for local input, and that local people feel that their voice is heard and their priorities can be taken into account. That means that the authority can work better and more practically. It is not simply an abstract question of democracy. Partnership is at the heart of effective policing in the capital.

I have listened carefully to the discussion about local authority involvement in London. Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Wandsworth and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have unilaterally sworn in police constables to look after their parks? London local authorities have sworn police constables and the Home Secretary does not know who they are. There is no central monitoring of their performance, qualities, training or recruitment. Both in London and elsewhere, there is a hotch-potch of non-Home Office constables. The Home Secretary refuses to recognise that they are a problem, but there are police officers in London within the control of two Conservative councils in London.

Order. I draw it to the attention of the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and long interventions do not help.

I hope that the Home Secretary has noted my hon. Friend's remarks. All that stands in the way of a proper elected authority is the utter fixated dogma of the Conservative party. It has carried its particular prejudice, which was exemplified by the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), against one or two local authorities into a generalised prejudice against all local government. I recognise that this point is controversial, but it must be made. It is the same with the Government's obdurate refusal to recognise the clear link between the environment in which people live and the way in which they behave—in other words, between the society and the level of crime in London.

I should make it clear that no one excuses crime. The first duty of any effective police system is to detect and punish those who commit offences. That is what our constituents want, expect and deserve. However, it is absurd to postulate a choice between individual responsibility for crime and the broader influence of society on criminal activity. It is not abstract sociology, but plain common sense. Not only Opposition Members make that connection; it is also made increasingly by police officers. For example, in February 1992 Commander David Stevens, head of the crime and community involvement branch of the Metropolitan police, said that crime was directly linked to what he called the "social and economic malaise".

Sir Peter Imbert said in a foreword last year:

"the crime map fits all too closely over the map of disadvantage."

This year he said:

"The continuing growth of crime is a fundamental concern which, in part, I attribute to the marginalisation of some elements in our society. The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one."

Mr. John Smith, the deputy commissioner, said in May this year:

"Any comprehensive strategy to address the root causes of crime must not just embrace the contribution of police and the criminal justice system; it must also deal with the whole range of environmental, social, economic and educational factors, which so fundamentally affect its occurrence".

I cannot believe that the Government can turn a blind eye to all the evidence that is building up from those engaged in policing. Sir Peter Imbert put the matter correctly a few days ago, when he said:

"Effectively then, society is not only more questioning but also more fragmented. Without true social cohesion it will be increasingly difficult for police to respond to the growing disparity and diversity of demands being made upon them."

In London, as elsewhere, there are signs that the police are trying their hardest to curb crime. Local people are desperately committed to the battle against crime, but the question is whether the Government are prepared to back the efforts and commitment of local people and police officers. We submit that they cannot do so unless they accept full responsibility not only for policing but for the state of the economy and, indeed, the state of the nation as a whole. The Government's failure to accept that responsibility, and their belief that inaction is always preferable to Government action, leaves us with no confidence that they can turn back the rising tide of crime either in London or in the rest of Britain.

I wish to delcare an outside interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. This annual debate provides the House, and the 84 Members who represent Greater London constituencies, with a valuable opportunity to discuss the policing of our area and to question the police authority's policy, which is uniquely vested in the person of the Home Secretary. It is also an important addition to the excellent opportunity that all London Members have, at least once a year, to discuss with the Commissioner and his colleagues operational policing matters in the area that we all represent. It is additional to the opportunity that all London Members have to serve actively on their police and community consultative committees.

I must express on behalf of my constituents their warmest thanks to the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, and to the men and women of the Metropolitan police service, for the way in which they are policing London in 1992. They do so in the face of increasing criminal activity and of offences which were virtually unknown a decade, let alone a century, ago.

I join the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police and to the deputy commissioner, Mr. John Smith. I take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Condon, the chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter Imbert. Mr. Condon is a distinguished police officer, who will bring new vigour to London and to the job of Commissioner. It is one of the most difficult and challenging jobs that anyone could be asked to undertake, and I am sure that, at 45 years of age and with considerable experience of London, Mr. Condon will make a great success of it.

One of the most serious crimes that the Metropolitan police have to cope with—a crime which affects every citizen who lives in London and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions more who commute in to the capital every day—is Irish republican terrorism. Last year, London was the scene of 21 bombings by the Provisional IRA, including the first use of a mortar in our country when 10 Downing street was attacked. I am sure that the House will join me in paying a warm tribute to Commander George Churchill-Coleman for the outstanding service that he has rendered to the people of London as head of the anti-terrorist branch. His work places us all in his debt. He is also greatly admired by the Police Federation and its members in the Metropolitan area. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well.

The range of crime prevention operations and investigative activities described in the Commissioner's report places a heavy responsibility on the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, and on the House to ensure that most up-to-date preventive measures are available to the police. Those include DNA testing, where evidence obtained from human body fluids could greatly assist in obtaining convictions for serious offences such as rape and murder.

I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the police need the right to seek the authority of a magistrate or a judge for the compulsory taking of sample body fluids when a suspect refuses to supply them. There is a curious anomaly whereby a suspect believed to have an excess of alcohol in the blood, who refuses to supply a blood sample, can be charged with an offence as severe as not giving the blood sample in the first place. Why does that not apply in a rape case when the suspect refuses to give a sample to the police?

That is an important issue. My hon. Friend may recollect that during the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended the creation of a DNA database, which is essential to the efficient working of the police service. There is one other important reason, with which my hon. Friend may wish to agree: in rape cases or other sex offences, DNA testing eliminates suspects and thus saves police time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention and I entirely agree with his remarks. In serious cases, involving murder and rape for example, samples of body fluids can often prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give further serious consideration to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and will consider amending the law on that matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has urged hon. Members to be brief.

The Police Federation also believes that the law on recorded interviews should be changed. Audio-taped interviews have to be transcribed by the police and supplied to the Crown prosecution service and to the courts. I understand that they listen only to extracts from the transcribed tapes. That consumes large amounts of valuable police time. The police want video recordings of all interviews at police stations, which can be viewed by the Crown prosecution service and the courts. I was therefore glad when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to my supplementary question yesterday that

"one day the courts will be able to see the relevant part of a video interview without any paperwork in between, but that depends as much on technology and on changes in court procedure as it does on progress on our front." —[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 552.]

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the House some idea of the time frame for making such progress and for equipping the courts with the necessary equipment.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I have long campaigned for action to deal with the serious problem of knives, which are all too frequently carried by many young people almost as a matter of course in London. Since I have been parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I have become increasingly concious of the problems faced by officers in dealing with that problem and detecting those carrying knives. I call on my right hon. and learned Friend to set up a working party with the police staff associations to review stop-and-search powers.

Powers were conferred on the police by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which replaced powers under the Vagrancy Act 1824. In the eight years since those powers were replaced, they have proved to be inadequate. I wonder whether the House knows that the 1984 Act does not give a constable the power to search a person, vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle, unless he has reasonable grounds to believe that he will find a stolen or prohibited article. That restriction has resulted in police officers not being able to search a person or vehicle without firm grounds, which constitute a virtual certainty. It is frequently impossible for officers to be certain. If they search a person or a vehicle in the belief that a knife will be found and prove to be mistaken, increasingly they face civil action in the courts. So people who carry and use knives are free to slash, stab and kill without much risk of being detected or apprehended. The law should be carefully considered and we should obtain a better balance between the liberty of the citizen and that of those who seek to uphold the law on our behalf.

There is a piece of equipment that the police need in order to protect themselves and others from serious assault, whether from knives or other weapons—the side-handled baton, which is longer than the standard truncheon and thus has a greater range. It is available in a fixed version, worn externally, or a telescopic version, carried by a police officer in the standard truncheon pocket. It has a considerable advantage over the existing truncheon. The police need that equipment because the existing truncheon, which has been in service for many years, is so short. As a result, an officer using the standard truncheon has to get close to an assailant before the truncheon can be used. In those circumstances, the assailant is often able to grab the truncheon, and the officer can find him or herself being beaten with his or her own truncheon.

Trials of the side-handled baton have been postponed, following the unrelated but nevertheless sensitive events in Los Angeles last summer. There is concern that the adoption of a longer baton worn externally may have implications for the image of British policing. However, I know that the Police Federation and other staff associations are to give evidence to the Home Office on how trials might proceed. Whatever reservations my right hon. and learned Friend may understandably have about the introduction of the side-handled baton, I know that he does not have a closed mind on the subject. I hope that those on the Opposition Front-Bench team also have an open mind and will consider the matter most carefully.

Action must be taken to help the police to defend themselves from the frightful number of assaults on both men and women officers each year, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned. Traditionally, police in Britain do not carry side arms. London, like the rest of Britain, is policed with the consent of the people. The Police Federation wants to keep it that way and does not want the British bobby to carry a pistol, but at the very least we should give our bobbies a baton more in keeping with the requirements of modern policing.

We owe it to those who protect the citizens of London, and other towns and cities throughout the country, to allow them to protect themselves. I know that only too well, because one of my duties as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation is to attend the funerals of officers who have given their lives serving the public. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to Detective Constable Jim Morrison and Sergeant Alan King, who both lost their lives in the past year. I attended both funerals, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), and they were the most moving occasions that I have ever witnessed. Hon. Members should reflect that it is not only the life of a young police officer in his or her prime that is lost; the death is a terrible tragedy for the officer's parents and families, who have lost everything for which they have worked throughout their lives. One has to attend one of those funerals to realise the tremendous sense of loss that is felt. I bring a message to the House from the parents and relatives of those officers. They ask, "Please do something more than you are doing now to protect our wives and husbands." It is a long time since the Metropolitan police were equipped with standard truncheons. It is time that the Government and the House took a grip of the situation and gave every police officer better protection.

Only two weeks ago, the policing of the borough of Hillingdon in which my constituency of Uxbridge is located changed over to the new sector policing system. It is going very well: more officers are being seen, and both the public and the police seem satisfied that sector policing is bringing an improvement. There are eight sectors in my borough, and each team operating in those sectors comprises an inspector, six or seven sergeants, and 30 to 36 constables. Each sector is responsible for policing its own district 24 hours a day. The concept is that the inspector is the team leader. He or she attends residents' meetings and gets to know the people in the district being policed. I welcome that devolution of police powers and believe that it will help the police and the community to work together in a more focused manner. Two officers in the village of Harefield in my constituency have taken the initiative and are running youth activities in their spare time at no expense to the taxpayer. A women officer is running a disco and a male officer is running an angling club. I hope that other members of the community throughout Greater London will do likewise. If young people are not to engage in criminal activities, they must be given leadership and the opportunity to enjoy worthwhile leisure pursuits.

The media concentrate on the crime of rape in London—the hon. Member for Sedgefield cited a 66 per cent. increase—but the media do not always tell the public about police success in clearing up such cases, which deters others from offending. There were eight rapes in the Uxbridge division last year, all but one of which have been cleared up. At least two of the parties were known to each. This year there have been seven rapes, in which at least three of the parties were known to each other and all of which have been cleared up. That is what I call first-class policing. When considering rape, it is necessary for the House and the community to acknowledge that very often the parties are known to each other.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way. I wish to finish my speech so as to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.

I have great confidence in the Metropolitan police. They are doing a first-class job in difficult circumstances and they deserve the confidence of all hon. Members. They certainly have my full support.

In the few minutes left, may I say how much the Opposition welcome the Home Secretary's apparent willingness to reconsider the issue of police accountability in London. He seems to be offering us a review. We must hope that it is full and open —a Clarke review rather than a Heseltine mark I review, although a Heseltine mark 4 might do in the circumstances.

It is important to win recognition of the fact that an elected police authority for London is a means of ensuring, first, that we have an effective system of crime prevention which involves local authorities and does not turn its back on them; secondly, that because there is an accountable, democratically elected forum, the police and the community come together. That forum should be the police authority for London, elected by the people of London. It can tackle the problem of growing crime on the estates, and of racial and sexual harassment.

The authority can also make constructive proposals for police training. I say that because nothing is more important than ensuring that the constables on the beat—and we need more of them—are trained to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the community. That is particularly important in respect of residential burglaries. There is increasingly a perception among those who have suffered the personal, emotional and psychological invasion of burglary that they do not enjoy the response that they need from the police officers who first come to the door.

Added resources are also required for the valuable victim support scheme, which often operates on a shoestring—its funding undercut by local authority restrictions on financing. Those involved in that scheme want to work with the police, and the police want to work with them, but neither is able to do so.

An elected police authority for London is long overdue. It would provide a forum for those issues, and the Opposition will press the Home Secretary to give London just that.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the publication of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's advice on the future of London's health services.

The House will recall that a year ago the Government asked Sir Bernard and a small team of experts to carry out an inquiry into health services, medical education and research in London. The inquiry had a wide remit and addressed complex and long-standing issues. The central problem is that, over a period of decades, London's health service has become increasingly poorly matched to the needs of Londoners. The Government are determined to tackle that problem, and with that in mind we asked Sir Bernard to proceed.

He was asked for a strategic view of London, working with the grain of the new NHS, and to look not only at the hospital service, but at primary health care and the organisation of medical teaching and research.

Sir Bernard has now submitted his report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and myself. We are publishing it today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and sent to health authorities, the university of London, and to the many professional and other bodies having an interest in its findings.

I place on record our thanks to Sir Bernard and his team for the very considerable effort that has gone into the inquiry and for producing so thorough and comprehensive a report.

The report does not offer any easy solutions to problems that have bedevilled policy makers and professionals for years. It is wide ranging and contains many detailed recommendations. Its key findings are that the current pattern of acute hospital provision in London is both undesirable and unsustainable and that it requires substantial modification to meet the current and future health needs of Londoners; that medical education and research need to be organised along different lines, to maintain and to strengthen London's status as a major national and international medical centre; that primary and community health services are comparatively poorly developed in London and that resources need to be reinvested from the hospital sector into these services to bring them up to the standards common in other places.

The Government welcome Sir Bernard's broad conclusions, which are in line with earlier reports—such as that from the King's Fund. I must stress, however, that his report is advice to the Government, not Government policy.

I am sure that the report will be widely and keenly debated. We welcome that. We will listen carefully to the views expressed. Indeed, I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to visit the institutions potentially most affected to discuss at first hand the ideas set out in the report.

When we are satisfied that we have heard all points of view, we shall respond by setting out our detailed proposals on changes in the NHS. I anticipate that that will be early in the new year. In bringing forward proposals, our prime consideration will be to safeguard and improve health care for Londoners.—[interruption.]These are important matters, and I shall be grateful if Labour Members will listen to the detail.

We shall ensure also that full account is taken of the implications for NHS staff working in London, and of the need for joint planning with education and research interests of NHS changes that affect them. I can assure the House that no major decisions will be taken without proper consultation using the well-established, existing NHS procedures. However, the Government accept the widely accepted view that London has too many hospitals and too many beds. Change is essential if we are to avoid the risks highlighted in the report of a spiral of decline in London's hospitals, and if we are to secure the benefits of a switch to more primary and community care.

There are, in addition, some immediate issues concerning the four trusts—Bart's, King's, St. Mary's and St. Thomas's—which have already been constituted, but which do not come into full existence until April 1993. Sir Bernard's report makes specific recommendations about those trusts.

In order to put ourselves in a position to decide their future configuration in the new year, I propose that consultation in respect of the Bart's, King's and St. Thomas's trusts be initiated in line with Sir Bernard's recommendations. The report raises no major issues relating to St. Mary's, and that trust will proceed as planned from April 1993.

In the case of St. George's—an applicant for third wave trust status—we will initiate consultation on a revised configuration, separating acute and community services. Again, that is in line with Sir Bernard's recommendations. I stress that those will be consultations about the future configuration of the management of the hospitals. They do not imply prior acceptance of the report's recommendations about sites.

The report makes a number of important recommendations about medical education and research, and they centre on improving the quality of medical education and research by amalgamating London's medical schools and, in the longer term, postgraduate institutions into four multi-faculty colleges of London university.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I believe that the broad principles underlying those recommendations will remain valid whatever detailed pattern of NHS change emerges after the statutory consultations. He has therefore written to the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England indicating his broad support for the report's conclusions on medical education and research. My right hon. Friend has invited the HEFCE, working with the university of London and the other bodies concerned, to take forward implementation of the proposals.

The Government intend to act immediately on two of the report's other recommendations. First, we have decided to establish as soon as possible a special London implementation group to carry forward work arising from Sir Bernard's report. The group will be part of the NHS management executive and will involve the HEFCE. It will be chaired by Mr. Tim Chessells, who will, of course, give up his current post as chairman of North East Thames regional health authority. Mr. Chessells will co-operate closely with the four Thames regional chairmen. Further details of its remit and membership will be announced in due course.

I stress that the group will be concerned with implementation of the policy, not policy-making. I decided that it would be wise to establish the group beforehand, so that it does not start cold from the date that I announce my decisions. There is work it needs to do before then— [Interruption.] These are important issues and, although I hope that Opposition Members will be able to give their views, it will be helpful if I may be allowed to complete my statement.

We accept also the report's advice that urgent further work is needed to review the disposition of several specialist services across London. I shall be asking the implementation group to set in train those specialty reviews as its first priority. In carrying forward that work, we shall ensure that London's world-class centres of excellence in treatment, teaching and research are clearly identified and safeguarded.

It is perhaps inevitable that attention will focus on the report's recommendations about hospitals, but it would be wrong to concentrate on those to the exclusion of the recommendations about primary and community care, and about services for the mentally ill and those with learning disabilities. The decisions taken on Sir Bernard's report must be seen as a whole, as part of a new and better approach to the provision of health care for Londoners.

Many people, across political parties, and including the British Medical Association and the King's Fund, agree on the need to improve and restructure London's health services. Achieving the changes necessary will mean some difficult choices. The Government's overriding aim is to improve the health services in London and for Londoners. It is on that basis that, after careful consultation, decisions on Sir Bernard's report will be taken.

First, let me thank the Secretary of State and her office for arranging for the statement to be transcribed into braille.

The statement represents a lost opportunity. It is the first real challenge that the Secretary of State has had to take on since she took office earlier this year, and I regret to say that it fails according to every criterion. Why does it contain no reference to paragraphs 30, 48 or 227 of Sir Bernard's report, which deal with the investment that is needed in London's health care—hospital and primary care—to bring it up to an acceptable standard? The report and the statement, by implication, accept that the present standard is unacceptable.

Why is there no reference to ring fencing the existing resources that are being spent in London? Why is there no commitment to protecting London's health care—London's investment—from the ravages of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement on 12 November? We can only assume from the statement that the Secretary of State has already given in on the question of resources, and that her proposals—her interpretation of Sir Bernard's report—will be an excuse for cuts, rather than for the future investment that is needed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the reversal of the internal market and the commercialisation of the health service are a prerequisite for the ability to put London's health care back on its feet? Does she accept that the protection of the specialties mentioned in the report and the statement cannot be achieved by their integration in the internal market—that it can be achieved only by their integration in a planned and coherent health service for the future? Does she agree that the establishment of a health authority for London is a vital prerequisite for the planning of changes, and for future investment in primary and community facilities in the capital?

Why is there nothing in the statement—bar a passing reference to "primary health care"—that would make anyone at all confident that the Secretary of State really believes that it is necessary to invest new resources in building up those inadequate facilities? Why does the statement make no mention of the need for improvement in accident and emergency facilities in the community, and in out-patient departments? Why has it nothing to say on such vital issues as how we are to invest the resources, and the time scale over which the changes will be made? Why was the Secretary of State unable to outline to the House the terms of reference of the implementation group, or its membership? The Secretary of State has had Sir Bernard's report for a long time, and the terms of reference are crucial to whether anyone in London or the country as a whole can believe a word that she says about good intentions towards the health care of the capital.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government's actions over the past decade have turned a problem into a crisis for London's health care? Does she accept that consistent underfunding, lack of planning and gross neglect of primary and hospital investment lie at the heart of the problem with which the statement deals? Will she extend the totally inadequate consultation period to allow real participation by the people whose voice is seldom heard in the clamour of professional experts and vested interests—the voice of the people of London themselves?

Does the Secretary of State understand that, although Opposition Members understand that the status quo is not an option— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. The inadequate health care of the people of London is not an option, and that is what the status quo would mean.

The protection of the health service, the jobs of health workers and the safeguarding of any promises that are made will be the Opposition's absolute priority. We have set out our criteria. We have countenanced no closure and no change in service, unless and until those criteria are met. This morning's statement meets none of them; it achieves none of the goals that have been acknowledged by many people to be a vital part of putting London's health care on its feet and building confidence in the future.

We are here not to dig the Secretary of State out of a hole of her own making, but to protect the well-being, the health care and the health workers of the people of London; and that is what the Opposition will be doing in the months ahead.

What we have just heard is the ranting of a NUPE-sponsored spokesman.

Sir Bernard's report—which I hope all hon. Members will read in great detail—identifies over-provision that has taken place in London for many years. There are, for instance, more acute beds in London—3.9 per 1,000 people compared with 2.5 per 1,000 in other parts of the country. Spending on London's acute services amounts to £260 a head, compared with £173 in other cities. Some 20 per cent. of health service resources are spent in London, which contains 15 per cent. of the population.

The Opposition always come up with the same knee-jerk reaction that nothing can be solved without a larger cheque book. In the report, Sir Bernard states:

"In 1992–93 spending per inner London resident on hospital services, after weighting for morbidity and mortality (which adds about 5 per cent.), and allowing for excess London costs, will be 20 per cent. greater than the average for England. The problems of the inner London hospitals are plainly not due to overall lack of resources."

What we are considering—and it is a sensitive and complex matter—is how we can ensure that London services are matched more effectively to the needs of Londoners. The great institutions—the teaching, postgraduate and acute hospitals, which go back for many years—are no longer appropriate to a health service where hospitals all over the home counties are able to offer advanced and sophisticated treatment. At the same time, the community services have not been adequately developed.

Clearly, the proposals have resource implications. When I return to the House in the new year to inform hon. Members of the decisions that we have made in regard to implementing the recommendations, I shall of course make the resource elements clear. At this stage however, the proposals constitute Sir Bernard's advice to the Government; they are not yet Government policy.

My right hon. Friend will know that the news that St. Mary's hospital trust is to proceed is welcome news to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and myself. The good work of that hospital is already widely recognised.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her statement is not about cuts in London's national health service provision, but about restructuring and improving the service? What action does she intend to take to bring home to the people of London the nature of the review, as opposed to the disinformation that will undoubtedly flow?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and also to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I was able to make that announcement about St. Mary's, but I know that many of their constituents use other hospitals in the capital.

It is important for us to take this opportunity to engage in an enlightened discussion of the challenges contained in the report. It is about the 20th report on London's health services to appear over the past 100 years. I am encouraged by what so many commentators, from the British Medical Association and even the NHS Support Federation, which is a politically motivated group that supports the Labour party, have said. Julia Schofield the director of the NHS Support Federation, said:

"It probably is the best decision to close one or more hospitals."

It is important we have a reconfiguration of services, making it clear that the aim and the objective is improved health services for Londoners.

Is the Secretary of State aware that her grandfather, who was a medical student at Bart's, is today turning in his grave because of the extraordinary act of betrayal by his granddaughter in the House? Does she not understand that Londoners will not let her close Bart's and that she has engaged upon a battle that she cannot win? If she does not believe me, will she go to the hospital today and see the tears of the patients?

My grandfather, who trained at Bart's and then went on to be a single-handed general practitioner in Chester, would have been enormously impressed by the developments in primary health care all over the country. There is concern, however, about London, where still more is spent, officially, per head on family health service specialties but where there is not a sufficiently advanced service available for Londoners. We have more GPs who are over 65, more single-handed GPs, fewer practice nurses and poorer community services, with fewer district nurses. I have no doubt that my grand father would support the proposition that we should not hold on to institutions but should think of health services—but, of course, patients first, also education and also research.

My right hon. Friend will know that the proposal to change the nature of or to close Charing Cross hospital will be met with considerable suspicion and much opposition. It will be hard to convince people that the closing of that hospital will improve health care in west London. When my right hon. Friend reviews the Tomlinson report, will she take into account the vital need to maintain, at the very least, the accident and emergency and primary health care facilities on the Charing Cross site?

I well understand the great loyalty that every individual constituency Member of Parliament has to his or her own particular institutions, but, with 45 acute hospitals serving 250 beds or more and with 12 major undergraduate teaching hospitals, it is clear that there has to be change. My hon. Friend has made some extremely important points about Charing Cross. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Health visits the hospital to discuss the proposals and to consider the way forward, I shall make sure that he takes particular note of those points of concern that have been raised by my hon. Friend.

Nobody doubts that the health service in London needs a shake-up, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that some of the things that she has said will cause concern rather than comfort, not just to those who live in London but to those who work in London and visit London and use the health service. All services across the public sector cost more in the capital city than elsewhere, per head of use. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that there is a great need for the transfer of resources to primary and community care, but unless the reforms mean that when people who live in London need a hospital bed they can get one, and that when people who live in London need an ambulance they can get one and do not have to wait six hours for it, and that when people who live in London have an accident they can be admitted to an accident and emergency department, and that when people who live and work in London find that instead of a statistical analysis of how many beds are needed there is a proper working out of how to meet the daily needs of that part of the country which, paradoxically, serves its people least well., the people whom the Secretary of State seeks to serve will be caused the greatest worry. At the moment we have worry. It is up to her to make sure that she listens and ensures that the resources are there to improve services, not to make them worse as a result of these radical proposals.

There is nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said with which I do not heartily agree. They are all very important points. All of them are aspects which we shall consider when we hold our consultations on the proposals. However, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that his constituency is served by three outstanding hospitals—King's, Guy's and St. Thomas's. He knows as well as anybody who is remotely informed about the health service in London that it is not possible for all three to continue without changes. The sense of uncertainty is very damaging for morale. It is right that we should grasp the nettle and consult and that we should take decisions. There is no one who, in any half-informed way, thinks that the situation can or should continue as it is. Propping up the acute services often starves the community services. We have to take decisions that will bring an end to the uncertainty for staff and which, above all, will lead to a better health service for Londoners which meets exactly the criteria that the hon. Gentleman identified.

After many weeks of uncertainty, speculation and rumour, I am pleased that at last the Tomlinson report has been published. There is no doubt that during the consultation period my right hon. Friend will be lobbied by those who are affected by the proposals. However, I ask her to bear it in mind that in my Hertfordshire constituency there has been concern for many years that our local hospitals have been disadvantaged because London hospitals have been demanding too great a share of the resources available. [Interruption.] We are all looking after our constituency interests. That point must be made. I remind my right hon. Friend that my local hospitals are treating former Londoners who have moved out of the capital. They also deserve to be considered.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are hospitals throughout the home counties that wish to treat patients who traditionally were sent to London. In the home counties we have encouraged those health authorities in the outer London ring to continue this year with the traditional patterns of referral, but it makes no sense to continue with a pattern of referral, unless it is what the patient wishes, simply to prop up institutions because nobody has been brave enough to make the necessary decisions. My hon. Friend speaks for very many throughout the home counties who say, "Please can we now reorganise the health service to meet the needs of the population today and tomorrow, not those of the last 50 or 100 years?"

May I tell the Secretary of State that the report and her statement will be received by the users of London's health services with anger, horror and fear—fear in the area that I represent, where some 728,000 people who work and live in the area served by St. Thomas's know about the waiting lists in that area and cannot, therefore, see any justification whatsoever for even contemplating closing or merging St. Thomas's and Guy's hospitals. If St. Thomas's accident and emergency service closes, the Secretary of State will make Londoners move around in ambulances and die in ambulances in London's traffic jams on their way to hospital.

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. When she studies the report she will see that it makes special mention of the Lambeth community hospital, which she has brought to my attention in the past. The report makes it clear that, for that small area to have such an intensity of acute services, without sufficient community services, is inappropriate. She will know how her constituents frequently use an accident and emergency centre instead of using a GP resource; there is a need to bring forward development in that area.

As I told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), knowing the area well, I believe that the staff know full well that the situation cannot continue and that, above all, what people want is a decision. In an editorial, The Guardian, said:

"Only political ostriches would refuse to recognise these facts. London's health service consumes more money than anywhere else but provides its citizens with a worse deal."

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the inevitable, if uncomfortable, logic of her argument. Decisions on these matters have been postponed for far too long. Will she assure the House that alternative medical use of Bart's, which has been a centre of international medical excellence for the past nine centuries, will be explored before the recommended disposal, to ensure that its long-standing traditions can continue, consistent with today's changing health needs?

I can only assure the House that our decisions will be determined, above all, by the needs of patients. Their needs must come first, but the Tomlinson report makes it clear that education and research occupy a similarly important position. We must make decisions according to those criteria. There is no doubt that hospitals in locations where the population has moved away are having great difficulty matching their activity to their resources. Bart's is certainly one such institution. Nobody will make decisions on any of these matters lightly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health will visit Bart's and the other crucial sites to discuss the way forward. I have already announced that we shall consult on the merged management of Bart's and the Royal London hospital, but that does not prejudge long-term decisions on the sites.

The right hon. Lady's failure to mention in her statement the crucial question of resources and her subsequent quotation of the opinion of Sir Bernard Tomlinson that London was over-provided in terms of finance will be greeted with dismay and cynicism throughout London. No adequate evidence has been produced for that assertion, and almost everyone who has hospital connections fears that the Government will use the allegation that there are too many hospital beds in London to cut basic health services under the guise of switching resources to primary care. She placed much emphasis on the centres of excellence. Will she assure us that at least one of the centres of excellence in postgraduate medicine that deals with heart and lung disease, which is a high priority in the nation's health—the special health authority which includes the Brompton and the London chest hospital in my constituency—will be preserved and not forced into an unwanted merger with adjacent hospitals?

I am saddened that the right hon. Gentleman should present the report in that context because he is well informed about the long-term dilemmas facing the London health service and about the excessive provision of institutions. I am sure that he is well aware of the independent King's Fund report, which considered even more dramatic changes than those outlined in the Tomlinson report. I cannot make any announcements except that we shall consult on the proposals. These are Sir Bernard Tomlinson's proposals, not Government policy. It is proposed that the London chest hospital should work with the Royal London because of the view that single-specialty centres increasingly benefit from a close association with a hospital where all the other specialties are available. That, again, is a matter on which there will be further discussions.

When considering provision in outer London, will my right hon. Friend take full account of the very important links between, for example, a community such as Ealing and Ealing hospital and do all that she can to shake up the emergency and ordinary sections of the London ambulance service, which are causing enormous distress to many people and which need enormous improvement? If such improvements resulted from the review, it would be most valuable.

The health care needs of my hon. Friend's constituents and those across London will be a high priority in reaching decisions. My hon. Friend asked about the London ambulance service, which was not considered by the Tomlinson inquiry. There has been much investment in a new computer system and vehicles and increased resources. Like my hon. Friend, I am determined to see an improvement in the standards that are achieved.

Would the Secretary of State like to comment on paragraph 125 of the report, which deals with St. Thomas's and the Guy's and Lewisham trust? Sir Bernard makes it quite clear that, in his view, Lewisham hospital should have a secure future. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees with that. Where does that leave Lewisham hospital if the amalgamation of St. Thomas's and Guy's goes ahead? What will be its status?

The proposal in the Tomlinson report is that Lewisham hospital should become a NHS trust on its own, leaving Guy's and St. Thomas's to be managed jointly. We shall consult on the report's proposals, and no firm decisions will be taken until we are satisfied about the outcome of that consultation. I remind the hon. Lady that, before the establishment of any NHS trust, the primary conditions must be that the trust will lead to improved services for patients.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are talking about a reallocation of resources in London and not a reduction? Does she accept that many people in London want to see better general practice and more resources put into the care of mental health patients? Does she accept that there has been a movement of population out of central London to the surburbs and that outer London boroughs want more and not less?

My hon. Friend puts the case correctly. An editorial in The Times said:

"Londoners need basic, unglamorous health care from GPs, nurses and community health centres. That can only be paid for with the money raised by making London hospitals better suited to the needs not of their doctors but of their patients."

That has been known for decades.

The Secretary of State must be aware that, week by week, every London Member receives ongoing complaints from constituents about the lack of services and about waiting times and waiting lists. So much for her comments that we are overprovided for in London. If the proposals that she has announced today are implemented, they will be disastrous for the people of London. She specifically mentioned St. George's hospital in my constituency, which is not threatened with closure, but yet again faces reductions in expenditure and bad provision. I take very much the point that was made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) about Charing Cross hospital: hospitals such as St. George's are being expected to take over from hospitals that are being closed, yet they cannot provide sufficient facilities in our constituencies.

The point is that health care in London uses more resources to less good effect in terms of bed usage and the number of consultants per patient than health care elsewhere in the country. All the indicators show that in London there is a great investment of resources without the same output in terms of patient care. Take, for example, varicose vein surgery. In one London teaching hospital the cost was about £1,300 compared with £210 at one hospital outside London. Resources are inappropriately used.

I made it clear that we shall go forward with the consultation on the separation of the community services from the acute services at St. George's. Time and again, acute hospitals dominate the agenda, and the community services are under-resourced and not given the autonomy and priority that they need. Many independent experts have made the same comment, and I have no doubt that the changes will lead to improved services for the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about St. George's, with its long-overdue approval for moving ahead with the application for hospital trust status. That will enable the hospital to meet the extra demand referred to it.

I also ask my right hon. Friend to do two things on behalf of my constituents. The first is to explain to Puzzled of Lavender Hill the relationship between the recommendations of the Tomlinson inquiry on transfer to the community and the improvements to waiting lists. The second is to ensure that when her ministerial colleague goes round London, and especially when he visits St. Thomas's hospital, he has in his back pocket a map of London bus routes, so that he can see where patients come from and whether there are alternative bus routes to other hospitals that may be asked to take them on.

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Clearly, travel times and transport routes to hospitals are fundamental to hospital usage. That was considered by the Tomlinson inquiry and will form part of our deliberations when we consult on the proposals.

Health waiting lists in London have been substantially reduced over the past year—by about 10 per cent. —but my hon. Friend is right to say that his constituents want an ever better service. When hon. Members have time to study the report they will see that many aspects of it identify the way in which difficulties have emerged in London—for example, the different relationships with GPs, and the difficulties they often have in securing a bed; people often use admission through accident and emergency departments as a route into hospital. All sorts of inappropriate patterns have developed in London, all revolving round an inappropriate use—indeed, a misuse —of the substantial resources put into London's health service.

May we take it from the tenor of the right hon. Lady's remarks that she contemplates closing either St. Thomas's hospital or Guy's hospital? In those considerations, what part will the development value of the site, as well as the costing of London's services, play?

The right hon. Lady recently had on her desk a report on King's College hospital which showed that the conduct of its accident and emergency department was a shambles in terms both of management and of facilities. How is that hospital supposed to cope with accidents and emergencies if one of the adjoining hospitals with similar facilities is closed?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have detected from the tenor of my remarks that I regard that as a serious matter, and as a problem which must be tackled. It has existed for generations, and now is the time to take a view on how we can improve health services for Londoners. That is exactly what I intend to convey. No decisions have been made, and no decisions will be made until my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has had the opportunity to visit the institutions involved, and we have had the opportunity to examine the report, the costings and the resources, and to think carefully of how decisions will affect patients, what the implications are for health service staff, and what the issues are with regard to education and research. The subject is complex, but the needs of patients will come first.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have placed in the Library a copy of the report mentioning the accident and emergency services at King's College hospital. To King's College hospital's credit, it has already provided the service recommended by Sir Bernard Tomlinson in that it has a general practitioner available at the accident and emergency department, because A and E services in London are often used in the way in which people outside London use their GPs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House on a day when there is the maximum number of London Members present. It is good that she should seek to share the benefits of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's advice with us in that way.

Am I right in my optimism that the consequences of Sir Bernard's recommendations for community hospitals, which do an outstanding job, will be that St. Vincent's hospital at Eastcote, and Northwood Pinner and district hospital in Pinner, in my constituency will have an even better future?

Thirdly, will general hospitals, such as Mount Vernon in my constituency, which takes patients across the borough boundaries from the home counties, such as Hertfordshire, have a better future, too? Demographic trends suggest that their catchment area will become more populous.

Community hospitals are strongly advocated by Sir Bernard, because of the inappropriate use often made of acute hospitals and a relative lack of nursing home care in London. There are fewer district nurses in London, too. The report raises a number of issues in which, although the resources spent are way above the average elsewhere, the service delivered is not appropriate to the needs of Londoners today and tomorrow.

My hon. Friend will want me to give him an absolute assurance that his hospital stands to do nothing other than benefit from Sir Bernard's proposals, but, of course, I cannot give any hon. Member such an assurance, because it is only right to take forward the proposals by consulting on them and thinking about the detailed implications. However, I can say to hon. Members whose constituencies are outside the inner London ring that although they have traditionally sent patients to the costly inner London teaching hospitals, increasingly they want to treat them within local facilities, where treatment can be given more cost-effectively.

I suggest that those who argue that the quality of service in such outer London hospitals is not of the highest standard should have that argument out with some of the clinicians at those hospitals.

What the Secretary of State has said about the London ambulance service shows that she greatly underestimates the scale of the crisis in public confidence now besetting it. Does she agree that it is unacceptable for GPs to have to wait for many hours for ambulances for sick people? GPs see getting through to the ambulance service as an endless problem—often they have to deal with answerphones. Does the Secretary of State accept that urgent steps must be taken to restore safety levels to the London ambulance service, and that before any improvement in London's health service can be secured she must give urgent attention to the improvements needed in the ambulance service?

The Tomlinson report is not about the London ambulance service, but I am happy to say that I expect to see improvements in the service which it delivers. The issues involved are complex. For example, the absentee rate in London is much higher than in other ambulance services. There has been a great investment in technology and equipment, and I have made it clear that I expect to see an improvement in the standard of service available to GPs and patients in London.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the over-provision for London hospitals has been made at the expense of hospitals in the region, and that at St. Helier hospital, in my constituency, the changes proposed by the Tomlinson report will be welcomed? Does she agree that habits have now changed, and patients get the best possible care at their local hospitals, so that is where the resources should be concentrated?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In the past, many patients might have travelled from the outer London areas into London, partly because London was the centre of all the expertise and also, frankly, because from the point of view of the local health authorities, the teaching hospitals were effectively a free good.

The whole point about the health reforms is that the local districts now have to make informed decisions about where to send their patients. They will also want to take into consideration the cost effectiveness and the quality of that service. The patients concerned would rather be treated near to home than have to get on a train and go to London for the benefit of medical students or anyone else who might want to see them. There is a different pattern of health service available today. The Tomlinson report seeks to ensure that we take the decisions to ensure that in the home counties generally, as well as in London, we can have a service that is more appropriate to the needs of today and tomorrow.

It is no good the Secretary of State coming here like Florence Nightingale fresh out of charm school and expecting us to swallow this garbage that she has given us today. No one in the country trusts a word that this lying, incompetent Government say these days—

Order. I am not having those remarks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them— [Interruption.] Order. I think that I am fairly capable of dealing with this matter if hon. Members will allow me to do so.

If it upsets you, Madam Speaker, I withdraw the remark of course.

It is no wonder that Bart's cannot compete, given that its services are based on tremendous skills. The Secretary of State is just creating a squalid market in the national health service. Will she give a guarantee that every penny saved from hospital closures in London will go into primary and community care?

If the Secretary of State has not made up her mind, what is the implementation group under the chairmanship of a Tory party member doing?

I shall pass over the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. On the implementation group, many hon. Members who have constituents who work in the health service know that they will be concerned about their job prospects. If there is to be redeployment from the acute side into the community side, there will need to be changes. Some of the consultants will need to think about their future. There are complex issues around the redeployment of staff.

Complex issues are also involved in ensuring that we have a proper provision of accident and emergency services. Sir Bernard in his report identifies 14 cancer services and a similar number of cardio-thoracic services. There is much duplication of specialist services, often on isolated sites. We need a review of those specialist services.

Tim Chessells and the implementation group will do much of the ground work, so that when recommendations are made in the new year, he is able to take forward the proposals. He will, for example, discuss matters with the BMA and with the Royal College of Nursing—with all those who are saying that we need to take decisions, but that we need to treat the staff and services properly.

May I remind the House that in the final four years of the previous Labour Government, they proposed to close five of the six hospitals in the borough of Greenwich, so there is not much new in this? In terms of the implications for services, may I remind my right hon. Friend that within four miles of the House there are six neuroscience units? The previous system led to the proposal that more than £50 million should be spent on getting another neuroscience unit at the Brook hospital.

May I specifically ask my right hon. Friend that the implementation does not take place until it is clear from the Ministry of Defence whether there is a long-term future for the Queen Elizabeth military hospital? Thai: may have implications for the future of the Brook services and for the Greenwich district hospital services.

My hon. and close Friend makes a good point. He is an extremely diligent and dutiful constituency Member whose constituents are extremely well served by his championing of their interests. 11 can ensure that at every level of my Department, the particular needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Eltham will be properly recognised and understood.

The Minister will know that it is suggested that the proposals for Queen Charlotte's and Charing Cross hospitals in my constituency and the neighbouring one will save considerable money. I want to be assured that if any money is saved, either by selling sites or as a result of other changes proposed in the report, it will not be used simply to mop up the existing deficit. If the Secretary of State uses the money for that purpose, she will not be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the changing patterns, which are necessary in many respects, are being used to provide the services necessary for existing patients, for those in queues waiting for operations and for those needing community care.

Before the Secretary of State answers, may I remind her that the reason why no one trusts the Government on such issues is that when they closed the long-stay psychiatric units, the money from the sites was supposed to go into community care. It did not; it went to subsidise the Government in other areas. As a result, the changing pattern of health care in London and elsewhere has not been financed properly and that is why we are in trouble. I want a guarantee, please, that money saved will not be used to mop up the existing deficit, but will provide the new services to which the report refers.

For the hon. Gentleman to question the Government's commitment to the health service is bizarre in the extreme. After all, we are the Government who have increased funding for the health service to the tune of well over 50 per cent. in real terms. We have a record of which we can be proud, unlike the Labour party. Every time we discuss funding, there is no doubt that this party can hold its head high and that the Labour party has to retreat from the statistics.

It is also the case that we need to ensure that resources are used effectively. I cannot make detailed announcements about resources at this stage. However, I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman and by many hon. Members that to take forward the changes, we need to ensure that the patients are safeguarded. Patients' needs come first. We want a more appropriate and, frankly, more cost-effective service which meets patients' needs. As well as the needs of patients, there is also the need for education and research.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that for some time there have been proposals to bring the Queen Charlotte's unit within the main Hammersmith hospital, although it would still keep its identity. It is part of the general movement in health care to realise that single-specialty hospitals are an area in which improvement can be gained by bringing them into the site of a hospital where all the disciplines are available.

rose—

Order. We must now proceed with the Adjournment debate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will take the House into my confidence. If questions and answers were shorter, I should be able to accommodate more hon. Members.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I remind you of Speaker Weatherill's regular comments in the House when hon. Members were not called during an important statement such as this? He promised to take them first when there was a subsequent debate on the issue. Will you adopt the same procedure?

I do not give such hostages to fortune. However, I have a very good memory for faces. The hon. Gentleman had better leave it to me when I go back to my office to remember the faces that were here today.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will not forget beards either.

Or badges.

Or badges. Thank you. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will you tell us whether you have had a request from the Government for a special debate on the Tomlinson report so that those of us who were unable to ask questions today can develop our arguments in defence of London's health service?

I have not had such a request from the Government. As we heard the Secretary of State say today, we shall come back to the matter on another occasion when I hope that we shall have a full debate. As I said, I remember the friendly faces around me today.

I welcome the annual review of policing in London. This is a general debate and it is not possible to be specific—only to refer to a number of key points about the state of policing in the capital.

I shall comment on the four police forces that serve the people of London and make some remarks about police strategy and the Metropolitan police. The Royal Parks constabulary serves Regent's park in my constituency, as well as part of the City of Westminster and London as a whole. The constabulary performs a useful role for the royal parks, and I warmly welcome the standard of service that it gives both to the residential community and to a large number of visitors to London. I would, however, ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass to the Treasury my view that the employment of expensive Royal Parks constables on what amount to car parking duties needs to be reviewed, especially as the constabulary is to become responsible for policing Hyde park, for which the Metropolitan police have been responsible since 1866.

The other constabulary that performs an invaluable service in London is the British Transport police. That very efficient police service has shouldered a large part of the burden unwelcomely brought to London by the Provisional IRA's mainland terrorist attack on the capital. Every day, the British Transport police have to decide whether to close down part of the underground system or mainline railway stations. It is worth placing on the record the excellent job done by the chief constable and his officers. They make an often unseen but most commendable contribution to the safety and welfare of the travelling public in London. The 400 British Transport police officers on the London underground system, working with the management of London Underground, have continued with their three-year success story in reducing the fear of crime as well as the incidence of crime on the London underground system. Their work shows that crime can be controlled.

It is important to note that crimes of violence against the public travelling on the underground fell by more than 20 per cent., against the figure in the comparable period last year. The London underground is believed to be the only urban transport system anywhere in the world on which crime is falling. That is important news, because it means that people can travel on the underground system without a sense of fear and because it will encourage visitors to come to our capital—something which we warmly welcome.

London's second largest police service is the City of London police, with a strength of about 800 officers and nearly 400 civilians. That force is also in the front line in the fight against terrorism. I need only refer to the appalling incident at St. Mary Axe in April this year, which left three people dead and another 100 injured. The cost to property has been estimated at about £2 billion. The City of London police and the lord mayor responded to that awful incident magnificently. We should remember that the City force also has responsibility for dealing with major fraud and, in recent times, the force has accepted no fewer than 105 investigations into fraudulent activity. They have a very good record.

The largest of the four police forces serving London, and the one that is traditionally the subject of our annual debate, is the Metropolitan police force. The funding of the work of this, the largest of our 52 United Kingdom police services, costs more than £.1.6 billion, of which 84 per cent. goes on personnel costs. The costs of policing in London are certainly very high.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's establishment of the Sheehy inquiry into aspects of the structure of the police service, especially in relation to police ranks and how they should be rewarded. That review is important.

There is an urgent need to re-examine the way in which resources are deployed within the Metropolitan police. I do not believe that there should be an increase in the authorised establishment for the Metropolitan police in London. That may seem a curious statement to make, but I make it because I believe that we still have a long way to go in improving the deployment of resources in the Metropolitan police. In that context, I refer to a written answer that I received to a question that I tabled earlier this week about the central command complex at New Scotland Yard, the 69 divisional control rooms and the 11 other specialist units, which employ a total of 726 police officers as well as 477 civilians. There seems to be massive duplication in the provision of control rooms. That is unnecessary and not efficient. I should like that to be reviewed as a matter of urgency so that we can deploy those expensive uniformed police officers to the front-line police duties in which the people of London want them to be engaged. We should employ civilians—including, perhaps, retired police officers with knowledge and expertise—in duties that do not require fit young men and women.

Let me refer to the problems of policing in London. I, too, thank Sir Peter Imbert, the retiring Commissioner, for his outstanding service to the people of the capital. I extend those remarks also to the excellent contributions made by police officers of all ranks and their civilian support services. There are many bright, able, talented people in the Metropolitan police eager to serve the people of London and to create the new style of policing that we have discussed today—sector policing. They recognise that it will be a real challenge in terms of management and the use of resources, but they are willing to take up that challenge.

Sir Peter has laid the foundations for sector policing through the implementation of the Plus programme, which has clearly shown that the police are willing to encompass change, however painful it may be. I wish that other elements of the criminal justice system—particularly the lawyers—would be as willing as the police to consider new ideas about their working practices and the way in which the criminal justice system should deliver its services.

The poor listing of cases in the courts consumes police manpower at an alarming rate. It is probably one of the biggest wastes of police time and money in the criminal justice system. I repeat: let us have no more police officers, but let us have better deployment of those we have. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and his Department. If sector policing is to be a success, the police managers on the ground will increasingly complain about the waste of their resources that result from the poor listing of cases. Modern technology can improve that system, and we look forward to the development of those arrangements.

I am, alas, prevented by constraints of time from referring further to the problems of crime control. I hope that other hon. Members will deal with them in their remarks.

Since I was elected in 1983, I have attended and spoken in every one of the debates on the policing of London. They all follow the same pattern. The Home Secretary comes in, makes a speech and disappears. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here "] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just returned; he must have known that I was about to speak.

I thought that the Home Secretary conceded that there was now an argument for a democratically run police force in London. He did not agree with the argument, but at least he conceded that a valid argument was being made. Many of us have advanced that argument year after year. It is unacceptable that what pertains elsewhere in the country, where there is a degree of democratic involvement with the running of police forces and the local authorities, does not apply to London.

A vast amount of public expenditure goes to the police force in London which impinges on the lives of every citizen in London in some form or another. They surely have a say in the overall policing policy and there should be some form of real accountability. In a debate on a Friday morning on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, there can be no detailed questioning of the police authority for London; we cannot question the Home Secretary in detail on specific aspects of the report. That is simply not acceptable.

The Home Secretary probably concedes that argument in his heart of hearts. Labour Members meet the Home Secretary at least once a year and I imagine Conservative Members do the same. We also have meetings with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As Members of Parliament, we have many other duties to fulfil. We need an open police authority for London so that the public can see what is happening and what is behind the policing policies for London. If that happened, there might be more support or less support for those policies, but at least they would be in the open.

The question about the part that the police play in the justice system has become more urgent. The Birmingham, Guildford and Tottenham people who were wrongly convicted have been released. That has exposed major flaws in the judiciary and serious problems in the way in which the police undertake investigations in the first place. Those issues must be addressed.

The policing of London is obviously in part a reflection of the social conditions in the capital. In the constituency that I have the honour to represent, unemployment is now about 20 per cent. and rising fast. Last year, fewer than 12 school leavers succeeded in getting a job immediately after leaving school. The disillusionment, depression and anger among young people who are growing up in a society in which they know that it is very unlikely that they will find a job leads to a high degree of alienation. Unfortunately, many of those young people are tempted into crime, drugs and an underworld existence. They feel forgotten and ignored by the rest of society. The police must deal with those particular problems.

I am glad that the report mentions crime prevention. However, we will need to know how many more safer cities projects there will be, whether the money available for those projects will be increased and whether the Home Secretary recognised that there is a serious social link between the increase in crime in some parts of London and growing social deprivation.

The local police force in my constituency is centred around Holloway police station. In common with the rest of London, it has developed sector policing. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary or the Minister would tell us when the regional system is to be abandoned in London and when we will adopt borough-based policing with sector policing underneath it, because there would then at least be the possibility of better relations with the local authorities and the local communities.

The police in the Holloway area clearly recognise that there are serious problems about the lack of youth provision and growing unemployment among young people. It is very much to the credit of Chief Superintendent Matthias and the other officers in the station that they were prepared to devote great effort to running a summer youth project this year. That took up a great deal of police time and cost a lot of police money. I am not complaining about the fact that the project was run. I applaud it, and I visited it twice. However, it is reflection of the cuts in local authority expenditure and general social provision that the police are forced to spend time and resources on what is in effect a social provision to cut street crime and the number of young people who are bored and have nothing to do, particularly during the school holidays.

The problems in London with traffic and transport are enormous and absolutely horrendous. The Home Secretary referred to the way in which the police try to deal with traffic problems, but I should be interested to know what advice the police have given him about the way in which they have been pushed into implementing red routes at the expense of other traffic areas in London. I should like to know whether they support a rational transport policy in London that does not develop a road system which encourages yet more cars and commuters to go motoring in and out of London or whether they support the idea of an integrated public transport system which would free police resources for better uses.

In the Home Secretary's speech and in the report, there are references to the increase in sexual and racial violence. Those increases are demonstrated in the number of cases reported. Surveys have been carried out in Islington and elsewhere into the incidence of street crime particularly where it is sexually or racially motivated. They have found that many people are frightened to walk the streets at night because they fear attack and fear that they will not be able to get home safely. If people are attacked, abused or treated badly by others, that is frequently not reported to the police; therefore, those cases do not appear in the statistics.

The Home Secretary should not underestimate the fear felt by many people, particularly in respect of the increase in racial violence and the activities of the far right and ultra right. Such activities stem from the British National party and its office in Welling. Racist violence is increasing in London just as it is in other cities in Europe. Those activities, including the incitement to racism, are illegal. Many Asian shopkeepers and black families are afraid because they have received excrement through their letter boxes and seen their children abused on the streets. They are frightened by the degree of racial abuse and intolerance. They look to protection from the police and to the strongest possible condemnation of the activities of the far right.

The report refers to the number of police operations over the past year involving the use of firearms. Such operations have risen from 147 to 191. However, it is unclear from the report how many policemen and policewomen carry firearms as a matter of course. We have a tradition in this country of not having an armed police force and I support the idea of an unarmed police force. If we have an armed police force, the criminal elements will increase their use of firearms and we will end up with the gun law that has developed in many American cities.

I raise that point because the report refers to the issuing of firearm and shotgun certificates. I found it frightening that 751 new firearm certificates were granted last year. Only 14 were refused and only 15 refusals to renew were granted. Some 3,618 shotgun certificates were issued. A total of 39,991 shotgun and firearm certificates have been issued. Nearly 40,000 people are legally carrying guns around London. Obviously, many other people may be carrying such weapons illegally. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that point and reduce the number of firearms certificates and tell us the truth about the number of occasions when the police carry guns.

One section of the Commissioner's report relates to the tragedy of deaths in police custody. Some of those deaths are suicides although the causes of some of those deaths are not yet fully known. The Secretary of State is aware of the problem and I have raised the matter with him previously. A most serious investigation of the matter must be undertaken. When the police have carried out their own internal inquiries into suicides or other deaths in custody, there is a need to make public the Police Complaints Authority report and the internal inquiry reports into the reasons for the deaths and the actions that have been taken to ensure that full care is given to everyone in custody and that there is constant surveillance to prevent such tragedies recurring. There have been too many unexplained deaths in the past. If there is to be confidence in the police force in London and the form of investigation, those reports should be open so that we can discover the causes and prevent the recurrence of such terrible tragedies.

I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of my constituents when I begin by praising the everyday work of the Metropolitan police force which provides a dedicated, professional service of the highest standard. That has been recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessors with more than just words. Resources and manpower have been increased dramatically. Across London, policing strength has risen by 27 per cent. since 1979–6,000 more officers—to a record level of more than 28,000. Pressure on uniformed officers has been eased, too, by the civilianisation programme. Of course, both factors have had a direct impact on crime levels. Although, regrettably, crime is still rising in the London area, it is rising at a markedly lower rate than elsewhere in the country.

There is, however, some imbalance in the allocation of the new resources within London, and the position in the Bromley borough in which my constituency is located causes some local concern. For example, in the Beckenham division today there are 188 uniformed police officers, compared with 221 three years ago—a reduction of about 15 per cent. in the direct police strength. Despite sterling work by the local chief superintendent, Ted Fullelove, and his officers, the extra strain on manpower has been shown in the most recent local crime statistics. In the first six months of this year, total recorded crime rose by 1,182 on the year before, to a level of more than 6,000. House burglaries were up by nearly 30 per cent., to a figure of 1,294, and joyriding was up by 45 per cent. It is of particular concern that only about one in 20 house burglaries and one in 35 joyriding cases are now being cleared up.

Another cause for concern is the identifiable growth in drugs-related offences, which I suspect is probably greater than the figures show. In a sense, drug use is a victimless crime and, therefore, not often reported by those who are involved. Some figures can illustrate the seriousness of that form of crime—for example, about £43 million in seizures across London. The police certainly believe with good evidence that drugs can be a causative factor in many other crimes that do not show up as directly drug related.

Clearly, the police are hard pressed. In my borough they do not have enough men on the ground to deter and to detect at the levels that the public expect. I make no criticism of the police. They do a wonderful job in very difficult circumstances. They protect the community, comfort victims, defend the innocent against lawbreakers, and risk personal danger, abuse and threat to keep society safe. But we cannot expect them to perform all their duties to the highest standard that they want if they are depleted of their most valuable resource, manpower. We owe it to them and to the whole community to put right that shortfall.

Police manpower should not be falling in any borough; it should be rising to match whatever increases are showing in the crime figures. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, along with the Commissioner, will look closely at that genuine problem and the request from my constituents on the distribution of resources.

I am not asking my right hon. and learned Friend for vast extra funding for the Metropolitan police as a whole, I am asking him to look at the particular problems that come about from the allocation of manpower. I understand the pressure on the Met in other areas, particularly in central London, but the needs of outer London boroughs must not be forgotten in the concentration on problems in the centre of the area.

I close, because I want to leave time for the many hon. Members who wish to speak, by briefly recording my enthusiasm for the sector policing concept which is being introduced across London and which is already bearing fruit in the Bromley borough. It is bringing the police force closer—visibly closer—to the man in the street and it is already manifesting itself in the greater use of police on the beat in the Beckenham area—a long-time request of residents in that area. That is giving them greater confidence that the police are present and protecting them and making officers visibly available at local level to deal with emergencies as they arise.

Backing up sector policing are the new sector community consultative groups which are already operating well, having been set up recently in my area. They, too, bring the police into greater closer contact with local people. Bringing the police closer to the community has to be good. I have never heard that criticised as an objective, and I have seen many benefits flow from it. Putting the interests of victims and potential victims first must not be questioned. It is essential to give the police the flexibility to choose how best to do that at local level and the resources to do it well.

Home Secretaries come and go and shadow Home Secretaries come and go, but some of us keep on battling on similar issues in this debate every year. We welcome the Home Secretary and his Labour opposite number to their new responsibilites.

On behalf of those whom I represent, although they may not know him personally, I offer a tribute to the outgoing Commissioner. He has not only been a good personification of the force but extremely popular and effective within his force and outside it. His force welcomed his time in office. It is also with optimism that we greet the appointment announced today of the chief constable of Kent to come back to London, where he served his apprenticeship.

The other word of thanks should be more general. We should be grateful—I certainly am grateful on behalf of my constituents—to the police force in London. I go further than that. In terms of individuals and structure, I believe that there are fewer things wrong with the police force in London than at any time since I have been in the House. There are always complaints about the police, but I have had fewer complaints recently than I used to have in the first years after I was elected. I hope that that shows new sensitivity to the issues and concerns.

I hope that we can also soon move to general use of the term "police service" rather than "police force". Much of the concept of policing has changed and the words that we use should reflect that. I have one little criticism of the Home Secretary. We should call the police either the police or police personnel, not just policemen. There are many policewomen.

Police officers.

Or police officers. It is important that all police officers are valued. That may be regarded as a pedantic point, but it is not pedantic to them.

I welcomed the Home Secretary's announcement that he is looking at police authorities around the country, including in London. I did not expect him to leap into a new structure straight away. He was perfectly fair with the House when he made his announcement. When Lambeth finally gets its act together, which we hear is on the way, and the consultative structure at borough level is therefore completely organised, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an open mind about a structure for London as a whole. It is not realistic for me to bid for a directly elected police authority from the Tory Government in the few years, but it might be realistic to have an indirectly elected authority—representatives of the boroughs of London—to debate police matters along the lines, for example, of the police consultative groups. At present there is only one forum per year to debate such matters—this debate—and self-evidently that is not enough, and it cannot be, because many issues relate to matters outside the constituencies that we represent.

I hope that the Home Secretary realises also that the bit of the police service to which most people relate is their local police station, and the division or borough in which they live. Areas may in theory be useful concepts in terms of organisation, but I am not persuaded about that. However, people do relate to the more local levels of organisation. I hope that the Home Secretary realises that we must strengthen the local police structure rather than continue building up the numbers of people at area level. Within the local structures, the key individuals are the senior officer in each division and the home beat officers. Whatever happens, I hope that the idea will persist that one person should have responsibility for one patch and should be in the job for a sufficiently long period—that means a significant number of years—to know the community and be part of it. That person must also have a deputy so that when he or she is away on leave or for other reasons, someone else who knows that community is on duty.

I am not quite so enthusiastic as others about sector policing. Clearly, it is not a good idea to divide personnel equally among the three shifts because the level of work arising is not equal. But there is a great danger that each sector will become top heavy. Some of the police to whom I have spoken, both privately and in public, are also not so happy about sector policing as the general consensus today suggests. I shall be meeting the Home Secretary soon as part of the annual political round and I should be grateful if we could talk further about sector policing. We must be careful how we develop this policy.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to police personnel and deployment. If he thinks that he has a problem with crime in Beckenham, he should try being Member of Parliament for Southwark and Bermondsey. We are in different leagues. It is all about what people expect. We must not assume that we can shift more police to the Beckenhams of the world when the Bermondseys have many more problems, and I would say that even if I were the Member of Parliament for Beckenham.

The key issue is deployment of personnel. I accept that the establishment has been increased. That is good news, but there are two problems. I am not persuaded that the complex method of assessing how many police officers there should be in each area is correct. I have examined it, and I admit that I do not entirely understand it, although I have seen the formula and read some of the papers. The formula does not take the variables into account accurately. The most important variables are resident population, working population, visiting population and crime. Those are the four major contributory factors. We must re-examine the way in which we assess the number of personnel allocated.

Even more importantly, the great problem at present is that however many police officers per area we have in theory, many of them are never in the area because they are taken out through what is called "AID" for central resource use. The figures that I have been given for October for my patch are as follows: Southwark was committed to supplying AID on 23 occasions, including seven football matches, 11 central London reserve occasions—anti-terrorist activities—one royal visit, one party conference and for three charge centres. That took out 121 police constables, 24 sergeants and four inspectors for, I gather an average of eight hours each. We must think again about how we meet central demands because we denude the local police services on a regular basis, often making the service that is left unmanageable.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not, because I am limited to 10 minutes, but I am grateful to be adopted as the hon. Lady's hon. Friend.

I welcome the Home Secretary's refreshing approach to looking at the issues anew from outside. Performance indicators are a good idea. We must address the problem of detection and clear-up rates. People in London are not happy about that. By objective standards, clear-up rates are poor. We must make sure that everyone is alert and that the police are not complacent.

It may sound odd for me to say this, but it is right to accentuate the responsibility of individuals—above all that of parents for their children. Much crime is committed by relatively young or even very young children, for whom it appears that the parent takes no responsibility whatever. That is not adequate. People cannot expect other agencies to deal with problems if the immediately available agency—the family—makes no attempt to deal with them.

It is no use the Home Secretary and his Ministers telling us, as the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) told me yesterday, that the Commissioner's analysis that there is a link between unemployment and crime is invalid. Both recent Commissioners have said that there is a link. As the pattern of unemployment increases, so crime increases. It is no use the Minister of State saying that a report by Dr. Simon Field disproves the case. Dr. Field may say that links in individual circumstances of crime are not clear, but the pattern is clear.

I will give two examples. Many unemployed youngsters in my constituency will make money out of drugs if they think that they can do so. They burgle to obtain the money for drugs. Many people who are out of work in my constituency and elsewhere will handle stolen goods if they think that they can get things more cheaply that way. That is because the economic circumstances are dire. We must accept that, on a macro scale, economic policy is the most important thing that can reduce crime.

Please let me continue to give high priority to dealing with the drugs menace. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that he was astonished that 75 per cent. of drugs-related crime came from London. I am not astonished, and I hope that the Home Secretary would not be astonished if I took him around my constituency to see drug dealing in the daytime on the streets and estates in front of everyone. It is a social menace and it needs to be tackled.

Finally—I see that I am in my last minute—please let us protect the youth service, because unless we have a proper youth service we will not succeed with other agencies. Let us keep up the battle against racism; Southwark has had a successful campaign recently. Let us develop links with local communities to secure community safety, keep up the pressure for better victim support and speed up the work of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Lastly, let us ensure that fewer police have to work on traffic, domestic or other issues which could be handled by other services or by special constables.

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House and to the Minister who will be winding up the debate for the fact that I must leave shortly for a long-standing constituency engagement.

No problem.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy.

I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and noticed his comments on the awful activities of the IRA. I hope that that presages a change in the official Opposition's attitude to the prevention of terrorism Acts, which were first introduced by a Labour Government, but which the Labour party now constantly votes against.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield talked at some length about crime in Islington and people's fears about it. One problem that we have faced in London during the past two or three years is that a number of law makers have become law breakers. Members of Parliament have boasted that they would not pay the community charge. Surely it is wrong for Members of this House and leaders of local government in London to say that they advocate selective obedience of the law. If one tells people which laws one is going to break or keep, one cannot be surprised if some people decided to break the law.

One of the most dangerous comments made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield concerned the confidence of ethnic communities in the police. Members representing London constituencies know that the majority of police in London are completely colour blind; they seek to preserve law and order, which is essential for everyone living in London, and they seek to ensure that every complaint is fully investigated.

Of course, concern has been expressed about certain policemen following the events of Broadwater Farm, the Birmingham Six and other similar cases, but it is as well to remember that all those cases took place before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 became law. I do not believe that under the present legal system it would be possible for those offences to be committed by policemen trying to take a short cut to ensure that certain people were convicted on false evidence.

I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) about police manpower. Under the Government, the police have been given an extra 6,000 policemen, additional civilians to do work previously done by policemen and huge extra resources. One of the things that we discover in life is that if one gives people huge additional resources there is slightly less pressure on them to use the resources as efficiently as they might. I believe that there may well have been some misallocation of resources in the fight against crime in London.

I sometimes suspect that certain officers in the Metropolitan police are anxious to wage war against motorists. Sometimes, I drive to the House along the Finchley road at 7 o'clock in the morning. There is a spot on that road where it is not unknown for two policemen to be lurking at 7.5 am, trying to trap people driving on the bus lane.

Quite right.

The hon. Gentleman may say that that is a good thing, but I think that citizens would be happier if the police were trying to solve the 80 per cent. of unsolved burglaries rather than seeking out motorists who are not behaving in a particularly antisocial way at 7.5 am. The other evening I was driving along Millbank and I saw a not very svelte policeman hiding behind a lamp post, trying to catch one or two motorists in the bus lane. When the police want the public's co-operation they should seek to behave in a way that will generate it.

It is unfortunate that individuals in police stations sometimes leak stories to newspapers—doubtless for no fee. Some of us were appalled when details of the difficulties of the previous hon. Member for Hexham were clearly leaked from Hampstead police station to a local newspaper.

I was also appalled at the suggestion made by Sir Peter Imbert of the existence of middle-class crimes. If one talks to ordinary Londoners one finds that they regard some crimes as imporant and believe that they should be dealt with as a matter of priority.

I accept that police sometimes have to tackle crime in London with their hands tied behind their backs due to the too-frequent willingness of magistrates to grant bail against police objections. It is terrible that some of our magistrates are excessively naive; there are normally good reasons when the police object to bail.

I know that the previous Home Secretary spoke of introducing a new offence of committing a crime while on bail. However, the trouble is that those who commit further crimes while on bail do so partly because they think that they may not be detected. The magistrates should take a much more robust attitude. As I said, the police normally have good reasons for their objections and the magistrates should he less willing to concede defence applications.

During discussions about crime in London we are frequently told that we are talking about reported crime, but such an argument is often offensive. When it is said that reported crime has increased, the apparent implication is that there has been a sudden change in individuals' propensity to report crime. I do not believe that people's willingness to report burglaries has changed massively during the past 20 or 30 years. Anyone who has been the victim of a burglary, as I have, wants—and always has wanted—to claim against insurance and report the crime. I am somewhat cynical about those who say that we are merely talking about reported crime, not actual crime.

If the police are to succeed in defeating crime in London, it is important that they should receive maximum co-operation from the public. I heard of a case in my constituency where a burglary took place, a next-door neighbour saw it happening and witnessed the goods being moved from the house to a car. But the neighbour did nothing, and said that she did not want to become involved. Our fellow citizens in London who seek to behave like the Pharisees and pass on the other side of the road should recognise that they may be the next victims. If the burglar, rapist or assailant gets away with one crime, his or her appetite will not be satisfied and they will return to crime time and again.

The war against crime in London involves not only the police against crime, but everyone in London against crime. I welcome the growth in the neighbourhood watch scheme, and I hope that every law-abiding citizen in London will continue to help and support the police. That is the only way to reduce the amount of crime—actual and reported—in the capital.

I feel sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) did not mean to imply that rape ceases to be rape if the victim knows her attacker. I and, I am sure, the majority of hon. Members would find that entirely unacceptable. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Uxbridge nodding his head in confirmation of my presumption.

The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) issued a clarion call for no more police officers. That call would not be echoed in my constituency or by my constituents. They believe, as I do, in the deterrent power of a uniform. While they welcome sector policing, they are concerned that some eight-hour sector policing shifts will have only six police constables.

Despite the Home Secretary's claims, my constituents are deeply worried at the increase in crime, particularly on the estates. We realise that no matter how many officers are employed, there will always be a hard core of criminals who break the law, and that stiff sentencing is only of value after a crime has been committed. London and the nation as a whole need a strategy for preventing crime—particularly that committed by juveniles and the young.

About 15 per cent. of all indictable offences in London are committed by juveniles, and a further 23 per cent. by young adults under the age of 21. In London, those figures are accentuated by the problems of poverty and homelessness—factors that have always been with us but which are being exacerbated during this long recession and—at least in respect of the young homeless—by the Government's policy of removing 16 and 17-year-olds from the benefits system.

Tackling crime committed by juveniles and the young is vital because of its sheer scale and because, despite the relatively petty nature of such offences—though they are petty only in the legal calendar, not to those who are their victims—they still provide a doorway through which their perpetrators may pass into a lifetime of more serious and repetitive offending.

The benefits of confronting crime immediately it manifests itself are obvious. In my constituency, local youth and community officers estimate that of all first-time offenders who enter the young offender programme, 75 per cent. never reoffend. Imagine a 75 per cent. clear-up rate across the whole of London—that really would be cracking down on crime. My constituency, with a population of 60,000 has only four centres where the problems of young offenders can be addressed, and none of them is statutorily organised. One centre that four years ago employed four full-time staff must now rely on volunteers and is about to lose its premises. Local youth services in my borough have been cut by 45 per cent. since 1990, and will shortly be cut even more.

The Secretary of State referred to increased police resources, but that again reflects the Government's short-sighted, one-dimensional attitude to solving the nation's problems. They are prepared to spend billions of pounds dealing with the effects of the problem, but not one penny on preventing it in the first place. In a debate on Wednesday, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) —in a different context—made that point most tellingly:

"I want more investment front-end in success and opportunity, not investment back-end on redundancy and failure." — [Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 484.]

It also makes eminent sense to apply that sentiment to crime prevention. It appears that we would rather accept the price that is paid by the victims of crime and the price of apprehending the perpetrators and of trying, convicting and incarcerating them, than pay the small price of giving offenders opportunities and guidance that would have prevented them committing offences in the first place.

If the Government really are committed to tackling crime, prevention should be made a statutory responsibility for local authorities—and that means that the provision of youth services should also be statutory. The Child Care Act 1980 states that all interested parties must liaise in the provision of adequate youth services, yet when it comes to being given hard cash to provide those services, youth provision is not included in standard spending assessments.

The Government should also finally and clearly turn their back on the short, sharp shock policies that characterised Mrs. Thatcher's Victorian renaissance, and are still beloved by many members of her party.

Hear, hear.

Between 70 and 80 per cent. of juveniles leaving prison custody reoffend within two years. Does the hon. Gentleman say "Hear, hear" to that? Such sentences do not provide a short, sharp shock but a short, sharp training course in how to become a more successful criminal.

The Government must also provide the resources for the youth, community and leisure services that are so vital in preventing crime. The country's taxpayers do not wish to save money on youth schemes at the expense of being afraid to go out of their own front doors at night.

Actually working with young potential offenders, or first-time offenders, is not a soft option. It is not some wishy-washy liberal attempt to spare those who offend from the consequences of their offences. It is a practical and proven way of combating and solving the growing problems of crime in our society, and in London in particular. It is about giving people back a sense of responsibility; it is about showing them that society has an interest in them and an obligation to them, and that they in turn are obliged to take a constructive interest in their society.

As the chief superintendent of one of the police stations in my constituency said:

"We should be seeking to give people back some self worth, self esteem and self respect. That is the way to begin to tackle crime.

I believe that is it high time the Government began to recognise that fact.

First, let me echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who recalled the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to police efforts to counter IRA bombings and other atrocities. Let me also repeat my hon. Friend's wonderment at the sheer gall of the hon. Gentleman's comment, in the face of the fact that, each year since 1982, he and his party have failed to support the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. That, I think, should be said over and over again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) spoke of the difficulty of combating crime committed by young men wielding knives. In my capacity as deputy chairman of the "Why" campaign—founded by Bill Dennison, whose son was knifed to death—I see the difficulty very clearly. Young men going out on a Friday evening will put into their pockets their keys and a knife, knowing perfectly well that they are very unlikely to be stopped and searched. I entirely support my hon. Friend's concern about the failure of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to plug the loophole. A policeman may see a young man walking along the street, having come out of a pub in the company of people who are likely to be dangerous to the community, and he can do nothing about it. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into that.

I welcome the Home Secretary's encouragement of consultations between the police and the community. It is a great source of pride to me that Sutton, in my constituency, has a very active police consultative group, which enjoys an excellent rapport with the police and meets them regularly. The group came to London yesterday to meet me at the Home Office.

The leafy suburbs of Sutton and Cheam should not be seen as completely quiet and peaceful. There is anxiety in the area about the serious increase in burglary and auto crime, and a general increase in crime that is disproportionate to the increase in police resources. It is important to retain a sense of balance in regard to how we deploy our police, especially when a crisis or a mutual aid programme is in progress in the centre of London. Too many police officers may be drained from the outer to the inner areas, leaving problems elsewhere.

In Sutton, burglary is the number one issue on locals' minds, because the district is largely residential. Not only has the incidence of burglary risen all over the London area—it is up by 200,000 since 1976, doubling that 1976 level—but burglars seem to gain entry far too easily, through open windows or open back doors. Doors get kicked in. Householders can do nothing about it. Burglars use jemmies. We should mount an education campaign for householders so that they know how to protect themselves.

I give my total support to Operation Bumblebee, whose aim is to reduce burglary to pre-1960 levels. I support also the fact that it seeks to change attitudes to burglary. Burglary is not listed as one of the serious arrestable offences in the Criminal Justice Act 1984. That is because burglary is an offence against property, not against the person, but any person who has been burgled feels that their home has been raped and violated.

We should remember what happened in Edmonton earlier this year when the house of an elderly person was burgled. Nothing much was taken, but the old lady was so shocked and distressed by the burglary and the invasion of her privacy that she died two days later. We should pay far greater attention to the trauma of burglary and to the sentences that are passed on burglars. The public feel that at the moment burglars get away with it too easily.

We should also pay greater attention to the age of those who commit crimes, particularly those who commit burglaries. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) and her concern about juvenile crime. Nevertheless, I take issue with the hon. Lady on one point. She tends to blame poverty and homelessness for juvenile crime, but the great majority of children who come from low-income groups and who live in accommodation for the homeless do not break the law. They do not commit offences. They know how to lead a law-abiding life. Children have to be taught discipline, but I fear that we have got out of that habit.

The problem was highlighted in Lord Elton's inquiry in 1989 into discipline in schools. It would be worth updating the findings of that inquiry. If children are not set a proper example by their parents and are not properly supervised, they go off the rails. One of the most disturbing cases that my local police station in Sutton keeps telling me about is that of youngsters being found roaming the streets late at night. When the police contact the parents, they do not seem to be at all surprised that their children are running around town. We should put more pressure on parents to act responsibly, to supervise their children and to know where they are.

I support the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that require parents to appear in court and pay a fine on behalf of their children. The Act came into effect on 1 October. I should welcome a report on the success of its implementation, or otherwise, as soon as possible.

There is also the question of school discipline. Schools help to set the tone. Although discipline is not part of the core curriculum, I believe that it ought to be. There should be closer liaison between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and an effort made t o see how school discipline can be improved. I have visited schools where there is a very sloppy atmosphere, litter in the playground and sloppy teachers, as well as graffiti and broken windows. Teachers ignore bad behaviour in those schools. Such a tone leads to children believing that lawlessness is acceptable, with the result that the community has to pay the price.

I believe, therefore, that it is enormously important that we ensure that children have a proper, structured atmosphere in which to grow up. I do not accept their coming from a low-income background as an excuse for them breaking the law.

Children are committing not only burglary but auto crime. Such crime is very much on the increase in Sutton. I support the Government's endeavours to ensure that car parks are better lit and better supervised and hope that they will carry on their endeavours.

rose—

Order. Hon. Members will be aware that the 10-minute rule is now lifted, but I appeal to them to keep within that limit so that all those who wish to speak may do so.

May I say how glad I am, as a new London Member, to be called to speak in this important debate?

The issues of crime and policing are of much concern to me. I know from talking to my constituents, wherever they live in Hornsey and Wood Green, that crime is a major issue for them. Rising crime and the fear of crime worries and concerns all of them.

I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that he might think about the consultative arrangements for London. I urge him, when conducting his review, to take into account the views of senior police officers. In the past few years, it has become clear that many senior police officers, including members of the Commissioner's management team, now support a police authority for London, for which Labour Members have been pressing for many years. As it now appears that there is agreement in many quarters of the Metropolitan police, I ask the Home Secretary to consider it.

May I dwell on one issue in particular and then deal with a couple of other issues briefly? In the recess, I spent a great deal of time considering the issue of domestic violence in preparation for the investigation of the Home Affairs Select Committee that will begin shortly. I spent some time talking about the problem to police officers in my constituency and elsewhere and to refuges and women's groups. One of the important aspects of domestic violence is the police's response, in which I am glad to say— and I do not think that this is unduly chauvinistic—London has led the way. There are now 62 domestic violence units in London. We have an excellent domestic violence unit in Hornsey which is well regarded by local people and local refuges. The response of people who have had contact with the unit and who have come to see me at my surgery about tragic domestic violence cases has been positive.

I do not wish to sound complacent about the policing of domestic violence. Domestic violence is often a hidden crime, committed behind closed doors. We still have very little idea of the extent of it. We know that there has been a huge increase in incidents reported to the Metropolitan police. The number of reported cases increased by 8,660 between April 1991 and March 1992—a 45 per cent. increase on the previous year's figures.

That increase was in part caused by the fact that more women are reporting such incidents to the police. It also reflects a change in police practice. In the past there was a regrettable tendency for police officers to "no crime" such cases—that is police jargon for not reporting them and not counting them as crimes. I am glad to say that in London the situation is changing and, as a recent victim support report recommends, the police are treating domestic violence with the same seriousness as other forms of violence.

I understand that the Commissioner sent a superintendent to Ontario last November to examine the progressive approach of the police there towards domestic violence, and that a pilot project along similar lines will be set up in Islington in the new year. I hope that I and other London Members of Parliament can obtain progress reports on that project. If, as I hope, it develops well, we shall want to adopt the best practice model in the rest of London.

There is still much anxiety among women's groups and other organisations concerned with domestic violence about the policy of policing domestic violence in London and elsewhere. Many groups call for a central co-ordinated policy for all domestic violence units. Although there are practice guidelines for such units, there can still be great variations in the way in which the police operate. In some areas the units are properly equipped and resourced and, for example, police photographers are provided to photograph women's injuries. Women can then use such photographs in any civil, as well as criminal, proceedings which may be brought in such cases. But in other areas of London the provision is not as good.

Many groups are also worried about the definition of the primary role of police domestic violence units. Do they have a social work role—counselling, and so on—or should their role be, as I think it should, that of an arm of the police, which exists not only to tell people their rights but to act as criminal investigators and to ensure that domestic violence is treated with the seriousness that it deserves? It would also be a step in the right direction if we ensured that in all crime prevention initiatives domestic violence was treated with the same seriousness with which we treat other forms of assault.

The way in which we treat domestic violence in ethnic minority communities is also important and I have had discussions with a number of ethnic minority women's groups on this issue.

My hon. Friend has made some clear points about the role of domestic violence units, and those units are to be welcomed. It is excellent, for example, that in Lewisham the police work in partnership with the council to deal with racial attacks. However, is there not still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the police realise that domestic violence is not acceptable in any culture or community? Just as it is not acceptable in general terms, it is not acceptable in any society in London.

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting observation. It is true that we must not allow cultural stereotypes to prevail. It must be appreciated that everybody has the right to the same protection under the law, and police officers must ensure that they receive it.

Sector policing has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In my constituency the Hornsey police division went over to sector policing on 14 September. I welcome sector policing. It is an extremely interesting idea and it is right that we should consider changing the shift system, the form of policing used since Sir Robert Peel invented the service. When we do so, however, we should take on board some of the concerns felt by police officers on the street who are concerned that there are resource implications in sector policing. I support my hon. Friends who have asked for there to be more police officers. We must have those extra officers in London.

I also ask Home Office Ministers to evaluate sector policing properly. I know that the Hornsey police will evaluate it, but it is important—and I note the Home Secretary's comments that he would study performance indicators and customer satisfaction surveys—that we have a system to study the experience of sector policing, not just in one division, but by making comparisons with other sectors.

Sector policing has implications for consultative arrangements. It is right and welcome that there will now be sector-based consultative arrangments. That is a step in the right direction, because it will bring decision-making to a far more local level. I also urge Home Office Ministers to appreciate that the process may need more resources. There are many consultative arrangements in London which receive Home Office funding to ensure that their business can be conducted properly. If sector policing consultative arrangments take off as they should, there may be claims for funding for sector-based consultative arrangements. I suggest that that should be supported.

I turn briefly to crime prevention and the partnership approach. I am pleased that in my area the local police, under Chief Superintendent Trevor Harvey, have been active in working with Haringey council to ensure that there is tremendous co-operation between the local police and the council. A good example is the initiative to prevent burglaries in south Hornsey, to which the Home Secretary has referred. Such crime prevention initiatives need money; they cannot be done on the cheap.

We do not need a moratorium on the safer cities project; we need its extension. I should like more money to go into crime prevention. It is not good enough for the Government to shirk their responsibilities and to expect the police and the local authorities to use their meagre resources as best they can.

We also want the implementation of the Morgan report. It is disgraceful that the report has been mothballed for so long. Crime prevention is an area in which local authorities, especially in London, can make a real contribution in the fight against crime. I urge the Government to put more money into this valuable area.

I will try to stick to the roller-coaster of Madam Speaker's request about time by briefly echoing the tributes paid to the police of London on their work in the past year and on the way in which they have been reforming themselves and their practices and achieving the breakthrough on crime that we seek.

I will briefly resist the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) who referred to police hiding behind lamp-posts stopping cars going into bus lanes. I hope that they will continue to do that. If we are to have public transport flowing freely, my complaint is more that the police do not always go up to the drivers of coaches parked in bus lanes and remind them that bus lanes are for moving buses and not for stationary ones.

I echo what has been said about sector policing. In Battersea, we have shown that it works. Despite preliminary doubts, it is now popular with police and public and is achieving results. I am sure that it will contribute greatly to London's policing.

There are certain areas in which the police alone cannot achieve a breakthrough; they need the support of the public. First, they need the support of the people who leave their doors unlocked. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, 30 per cent. of burglars do not have to force entry because the door is left open for them. Locks should be fitted and used. We need the support of the insurance industry in this; where claims are made in respect of burglaries, the industry should take into account the actions of policyholders in fitting locks and any contributory negligence that there may have been.

The same goes for car crime. We need the support of motor vehicle manufacturers, who should make their vehicles secure against crime. We also need the support of architects, designers and town planners, who should ensure that they design out crime when planning new estates and improving existing ones.

We also need the support of British Rail. We have heard how successful London Transport has been in getting rid of crime on the underground. A pro-active management has worked with the public and the transport police to get rid of crime. Sadly, British Rail has not taken the same view. When I have sought to have measures taken at Clapham Junction and Wandsworth Town stations, where constituents of mine have been assaulted and even stabbed, British Rail has said that it is not its task to prevent such incidents. I say that it is, indeed, British Rail's task and that it has as much of a duty as anyone else to help the community to fight crime. I hope that the Minister will put pressure on British Rail, through his colleagues at the Department of Transport, to play its part with staffing measures and through the installation of cameras and emergency telephones.

I ask, too, for the support of the cycling community. I am a great supporter of cycling in London because it is one way of improving London's environment. I am always battling for better cycling routes, and I urge the boroughs to deal with the pot holes which make cycling dangerous. I do not know the figure for London, but nationally there have been 24,803 cycling casualties in the past 12 months. Some accidents are caused by motorists and the cycling environment; others are caused by cyclists cycling without lights, through red lights, the wrong way down one-way streets and across pedestrian crossings. We had this argument last time the issue was raised, but we have yet to see a definition of pedestrian crossings which makes it clear that one may wheel but not ride a bicycle across them. Motorists and cyclists seem unaware of the law on that. I hope that it can be made clear to them.

It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would talk to the cycling organisations about the possibility of some form of cycle registration. The registration of bicycles worked when I was a student at Oxford, although I suppose that in those days there was a bit more metal on bicycles on which to paint the number. Perhaps bikes should carry a number plate on the back, as motor scooters do. We need a system whereby we can both identify bad cyclists and restore lost or stolen bikes to their owners. Cyclists would welcome consultation on that.

I urge the Minister to consider two of the ways in which the powers of the police to help the community can be improved. First, they should have the power to confiscate equipment belonging to people who perpetrate the crime, as I call it, of neighbourhood noise. The police have that ability in Scotland, but, despite the Liverpool case a few months ago, it is not clear whether they have it in England. That power would go a long way towards making the public more co-operative and the police more effective in stamping out one of the nuisances of our society. It is better for the police to have that power than for it to be exercised by the local council; a police officer who goes to confiscate equipment has a standing that a council officer does not and should not be expected to have.

We must also consider the licensing of amusement arcades, which are not simply unpopular with residents but can attract the kind of element which is attached to crime. They can also attract young people into that environment. At present, local authorities have very few powers over the licensing of such arcades, and the police therefore have few powers to advise them. I urge the Government to introduce a law which will make it much easier to resist applications for amusement arcades.

The police should do more with ex-offenders to bring them back into the community and to improve their relationships with the police. Lastly, I agree with what has been said about young offenders. So often the burglars of today are 11 and 12-year-olds. From time to time they are caught and sent to court. In no time at all, after receiving a very small fine or a warning, they are out of court and back up the drainpipes. We must do something to protect society from those young villains. If necessary, we must take them out of circulation. They should not be placed in the rough, tough prisons referred to by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson). We should train them to be good citizens as they grow up and protect society from them. Never has so much been owed by so few to so many—and that is because the very few have pinched it.

This is our annual five-hour debate on policing in London. That alone shows the ineffectiveness of accountability in London. If this debate were taking place under a local authority structure, we should have several annual debates, and senior police officers and other officers would be here to answer questions and to discuss policing with us. In that context, we would develop a much better crime prevention policy, better policing and deal with some of the problems that emerge from time to time between the police and the public. That is why accountability is so important.

If the Home Secretary's opening comments were an indication of the beginnings of a U-turn on the matter, I should be delighted. It has always struck me as odd that the Conservative party seems to believe that democratic policing is bad and that undemocratic policing is therefore good. The Home Secretary suggested that Lambeth council, which was criticised in the old days, was now changing some of the old things that it had said and done. In the early 1980s local authorities said and did some things that were wrong and bad. However, I should place on the record the fact that they also did and said many good things.

The problem is that the other side of the same argument is that policing in the 1970s and the 1980s failed badly because there was bad practice in policing. The Home Secretary and the Minister should read carefully the speech made by Sir John Woodcock, the chief inspector of constabulary. He went far further than any policeman has gone so far in accepting the responsibility of the police for the malpractice of those years.

I have a long history of involvement in these issues as a probation officer and as a senior probation officer in London and as an inner London Member of Parliament. I warned the House and other people that if such policing continued out of control, the criminal justice system would come into serious disrepute. That happened and it took the Birmingham, Guildford and Broadwater Farm cases to bring it out.

Sir John Woodcock was right to say that such things could not have happened unless there was a culture that supported them. He was right to be critical of the rest of the criminal justice system. I would include the forensic service in that criticism and there is a very strong case for distancing it from the Crown prosecution service. The courts should also take some responsibility.

When the Government passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I was one of the first to claim that some aspects of that legislation were unworkable for a police officer on the street. The Government achieved the worst of both worlds. They imposed restrictions on the police when they did not have the right structure to prevent innocent people being wrongly convicted. We have still not got that balance right. Inasmuch as the 1980s were a tragic period of lack of trust in the police, so also they reflected growing anger on the streets among people who felt that they could not trust the police.

After many years, I am much more encouraged by the way in which policing has turned around in the past five or six years. I have has some involvement in training and there have been significant changes. The onus is on the House to begin to change some of the other things that might help the police to do their work rather better.

It is no good the police saying that accountability means political control. It has come to our notice, to use that favoured term, that frequently Home Secretaries have been card-carrying, paid-up members of the Conservative party. That, to my mind, means that they are politicians. I would far rather have police forces under the control of a local authority, because a local authority does not impose duties on the police that are contrary to what they must do by their duty, any more than a local authority does that to its social workers. No councillor is allowed to say, "You will take this child into care," or, "You will make a restriction order on this person who is mentally ill and take him in under the Mental Health Act." One cannot do that in respect of education or housing, either.

The argument has never been that operational decisions should be under the control of a local authority or the Home Secretary. In fact, under this Government operational decisions have frequently been made by the Home Secretary. That is political control of the worst type. If the Government want to go down that road, they should recognise that they are on the road to a national police force under the Home Secretary's control, which is the control of a politician. That is unacceptable. Policing needs to be as near to the public as possible. Operational policing decisions need to be made by the police under a proper structure, just as they are in social services, and so on. Overall policy should be discussed with elected representatives because that is how we have crime prevention and victim support.

We will not deal properly with the confidence of the public until we give greater support to victims. I welcome the comments by the police and Sir John Woodcock in recognising that victims are often the last ones to be considered. If I am burgled, it is a problem for me. I have to contact the insurance company involved, list lost property and so on. That problem pales into insignificance when I compare it with that of someone in a low-income area in my constituency, frequently a pensioner living alone who cannot afford insurance. When their television set is stolen, it is not just that their home is invaded; they also cannot afford to replace the television.

That is why people at the street level in areas that are hit by crime feel very angry about the criminal justice system and the way in which it does not seem to give enough attention to victims and, in their eyes—wrongly, I often think—gives too much attention to offenders.

That brings us to crime prevention. Conservative Members still seem to think that crime prevention equals stronger locks on doors and windows. I am very much in favour of stronger locks on doors and windows. Indeed, if the housing proposals that Opposition Members have been making for many years had been followed, we would have had rolling programmes for public housing, housing association and council housing and, indeed, on my proposals, for private sector rented housing, too, in order to strengthen doors and windows. However, it is not just that, nor is it the concierge system which can dramatically reduce crime in high-rise flats. That is important, too, but even more important is the social and economic structure that we provide; that can make a difference between crime going up or going down.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) always seems to live on a different planet from the one that I recognise. If she believes that disciplining or putting a bit more stress or pressure on parents would make the difference between their teaching their children to offend or not, she is 100 per cent. wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) accurately said, the police say that crime fits the pattern of poverty. They are right. This matter is not about imposing greater pressures on families; it is about recognising that the pressure is already too great. The probation penalties that I knew were already very toughly disciplined. It was the sort of toughness that neither I nor, I suspect, the hon. Lady would approve of.

I give the hon. Lady one example. A young lad is clouted round the ear when he is caught lying by his mother. She says, "Do not lie to me", and whacks him round the ear. That is a normal pattern of behaviour. However, some time later the doorbell goes and it is the milkman calling for payment of his bill. The boy's mother says, "Go downstairs and tell him I am not in." That example is a double message—it is all right to lie to some people but not to others. The message is not about discipline but about consistency. The two things that matter in parenting are love and consistency. The hon. Lady shakes her head. She should think about it for a while. Discipline will be effective, whether it is tough or soft. It is the consistency and the love that go with it that matter. We may not be able to legislate for that in the House of Commons. However, we can increase the structures that support a family under stress.

The other day I heard the Minister deny that there was a link between unemployment and crime. We all know that there is such a link. But no one who knows anything about the matter has ever argued that it is a direct, statistical, one-to-one relationship. It is not suggested that because someone is unemployed he or she is more likely to be an offender. That is not the argument. The argument is that as factors such as unemployment add to the stress on either an individual or a family, the chances of behaviour which is not the norm for that person or family increase.

The result may be mental health breakdown—hence the increased suicide rate for people who are unemployed—or, more likely, family problems. If a father becomes unemployed it is likely that his children will offend. That is because frequently a family is operating at the margin of coping. The family does tolerably well and just about manages. It may offer sufficient love and just enough consistency to get by. But then society fails to provide the necessary props for that family, whether in the form of employment, education, income or whatever. Society withdraws the safety net and the family, which previously just about coped, tips over and fractures.

The two factors that are most important in crime prevention are family structure and support, and community support. Those factors lead to lower crime rates in both older traditional societies and societies such as ours where there is a well-established community and families are reasonably well supported.

One measure that would do more for crime prevention than almost anything else is the provision of nursery education for every child. We could also offer support to families and communities by providing more services in other areas of education in low-income, high-unemployment areas. To get that support going and make the community operate as one that supports families will do more to cut crime than any number of locks on doors and windows. We do not want to be forced to live behind bars.

The Government have an appalling record on crime and a bad record on crime prevention and policing. We can crack crime in Britain but only if we put crime prevention first and ensure that policing is close to the community.

I have no doubt that few in my constituency of Monmouth will read the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. That is not surprising as it costs £20. London is much more than simply the vested interest of London Members; it is the great capital of the United Kingdom. I rise to speak in the debate because my constituents are absolutely horrified and puzzled by what they see on the streets of London.

I have no doubt that my chief constable in our excellent local force in Gwent will read the report. He will be glad to see the extra police resources that are provided in central London. We are puzzled in Gwent that the Home Office considers that we do not need more police officers. In a generous mood my constituents will take the view that that reflects priorities where more needs to be done.

What do my constituents see when they come to London to go to the theatre, to shop or, indeed, to commute? They see that the area of central London from around the Strand has become the home for scores, if not hundreds, of homeless people who have formed encampments in every doorway. If one is there, not during the working and shopping week, but to go to the theatre in the evening, one finds that every air vent has been occupied and people are bedding down. Before the recent events in Lincolns Inn Fields, a bidonville had been set up—apparently with impunity.

My constituents are saying that, judging by the appearance of central London, it is no longer the great capital of an empire but a third-world country. They charge the Commissioner with seeming to have lost control of the streets, at least in a limited areas of central London. It is the law of the land—and ought to remain the law—that to sleep rough when directed to a reasonably accessible shelter is a criminal offence.

There are not any such places.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I will come in a moment to the analysis of how that has come to pass.

Beyond any shadow of doubt, it is an appalling social problem. there are a mixture of social factors, which apparently include care in the community for former occupants of mental hospitals—the most wicked form of care in the community imaginable, tossing them on to the streets to sleep rough. As the winter comes, anger is mounting among my constituents when they see people—[Interruption.]—

Order. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) must not intervene between the Chair and the Member speaking. She has done that twice.

She is only trying to crawl her way to the top as a parliamentary private secretary.

Order. I do not need a sedentary contribution from the hon. Gentleman now and he may wish to catch my eye later.

That is probably the only chance to contribute that I shall get.

I shall be brief, to encourage the hon. Gentleman.

In winter, it is appalling to see people bedding down in the gateways of the Strand, likely to die of exposure in horrific circumstances. If nothing else, it is an issue of law enforcement. My constituents tell me that they find it funny that this only happens in a limited area of central London.

It happens all over London.

The hon. Gentleman is ignorant as to London. If one passes Temple Bar and enters the district controlled by the City of London police force, one will see no such problems. Mr. Commissioner Kelly and his excellent force are to be congratulated on enforcing the law.

The statistics are dramatic. Those for the most recently available year show that there were no convictions for sleeping out in the City of London and that there were 12 convictions in the Metropolitan police district. There were five convictions for begging in the City of London and 1,251 in the Metropolitan police area. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the air vents and the emptiness of the streets in the City make that a much more attractive place to sleep out in central London than the Strand. People do not go there because they know full well that the law will be enforced. Why is it not being enforced by the Commissioner? I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that that needs proper examination.

Is it a case of an operational decision? There has been a lavish and expensive advertising campaign on the underground depicting some homeless person—to whom the Metropolitan police rightly owe duties—which states that the Metropolitan police are obliged to enforce the vagrancy laws. The report which the House is considering states:

"My officers have faced a difficult task"—

That is readily accepted and respected —

"in balancing the wishes of all sections of the community. We have worked in conjunction with voluntary agencies to help those at risk or in genuine need."

There is no mention of the enforcement of the law by the Commissioner in that regard, and the statistics clearly show that he is not attempting to enforce it. Everyone's experience of walking along the Strand or Temple place shows that to be the case.

If the problem is not due to the Commissioner, does it occur because the discretion to prosecute has not been exercised? My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should tell us. However, it does not lie in the mouth of either my right hon. and learned Friend or the Commissioner to suspend and dispense with the laws of the land because certain aspects of fashionable opinion do not wish those laws to be enforced. The rule of law cannot be broken selectively. The Commissioner is obliged to enforce it.

A more reasonable explanation for what has happened may well be the lack of reasonable places of shelter available. But the problem with that explanation, if I understand the statements made by Ministers, is that they are rightly pleased that the number of such places has recently been dramatically increased. I note from the Commissioner's report that there is no suggestion that that is the basis for his decision or his practice of failing to enforce the law in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman should talk to the people who know.

Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to contain himself. I know that that is difficult, but perhaps he could try a little harder today.

I know that I may shock the sensibilities of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but great numbers of voters and my constituents feel strongly about the issue.

It may be that the Commissioner could rightly say that as a result of the legislative changes in 1982 and 1984, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred, the law is defective and has been unnecessarily weakened in relation to such problems on the streets. However, there is no mention of that in the report and the latest Government statement that I can trace in Hansard shows that there is no intention to review that sector of the law.

In selected parts of central London, evidence can be seen of immense personal individual tragedy which must not be allowed to continue and which can be explained only by the practices of the Metropolitan police. It is an outrage and a disgrace that such tragedy has been allowed to continue for so long. But to my constituents coming to London, the position in the capital seems an inner-city urban equivalent of the curse of new age travellers.

Such people are a threat. One does not know when approached by a beggar in the Strand whether that person is perfectly harmless and amiable or dangerous. The person may have a knife or be seriously mentally disturbed. Those who returned Conservative Members of Parliament and elected a Conservative Government did so primarily because Conservatives believe in security and the rule of law. The rights of my constituents to wander central London during the pre-Christmas shopping season are being gravely diminished by the present state of affairs. I should be grateful for a specific reply from my hon. Friend the Minister on this issue. I warn him that there is a silent accumulation of disgust at the inhumane situation that has been tolerated and a growing outrage that the rule of law has been suspended and dispensed with in a way that seems, on the face of it, unconstitutional.

I wish to describe two serious problems affecting my constituency—street prostitution and the scourge of drugs.

It is impossible for the majority of hon. Members whose constituencies may not contain the problem of street prostitution to appreciate the concern and outrage felt by those living in residential districts suffering from it. The resulting difficulties include the harassment of women walking along, who are taken to be prostitutes. There are a number of small schools in Stamford Hill, an area where the problem of street prostitution exists, and prostitutes ply their trade night and day. Women bring their children to school and find that there are prostitutes outside.

At night, there is noise nuisance when sometimes as many as half a dozen prostitutes congregate at street corners, squabbling and disturbing residents. In the Stamford Hill district there are a number of blocks of flats, some of which are sheltered accommodation for the elderly. Elderly people sometimes wake up in the morning and emerge from their doorways to find the corridors littered with used condoms and broken syringes—signs of the prostitutes' activities. We experience all the problems of crime related to the prostitutes, such as drugs and violence.

At any given time only a handful of hon. Members suffer from that problem in their constituencies and, as a consequence, the House does not take the matter seriously enough. The residents in Stamford Hill and those in the northern part of my constituency, around the Seven Sisters road and Amhurst park, have had enough of the problem. It causes them misery, is an environmental nuisance, and it gives rise to crime and related activities. My constituents want more resources devoted to the police, and by the police, to taking prostitution off the streets, and they urge a serious review of the law. More could be done to strengthen the law not necessarily on prostitution but kerb crawling. It takes two to create a nuisance, and the men who kerb crawl all night are just as much to blame as the prostitutes. People throughout the country share that concern. It is hardly fair that prostitutes can be charged and imprisoned while their male customers, who are just as culpable, get off scot free. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House take that matter seriously.

Surprise has been expressed at the scale of the drugs problem in inner London, but those of us born and brought up there have seen that transformation, with the introduction of hard drugs on to inner city streets—particularly crack cocaine. Drug abuse is itself an illegal activity, but it also creates violence. Many of the shootings and killings which occur in London are directly connected with the drugs trade, and crimes are committed by addicts trying to get money to pay for their daily fix. That is the motive behind many of the mindless and vicious assaults that we read about in the London newspapers.

Drug abuse is not, unfortunately, a crime which is committed behind closed doors. Housing estates are ruined when flats are taken over and used as retail outlets for drugs. Even in Clissold park, in which I walk my baby most days when I am not in the House, the sandpit cannot be used because it is full of crushed syringes. The drug menace is a sword at the heart of the inner city. Those of us familiar with the changing nature of that threat want the Metropolitan police to devise a serious strategy against drugs. In some parts of London, the belief is that their strategy is one of containment—but for the citizens of Hackney, that is not enough. We want the drug menace taken off our streets altogether.

The specific issue that I want to raise concerns serious allegations made against officers at Stoke Newington police station, which has developed an unfortunate reputation over the years. Earlier this year, thousands of pounds had to be paid to people who had been falsely arrested, harassed, or been subjected to violence by Stoke Newington police. I refer to a particular allegation—now the subject of an internal inquiry—that over the years, police at Stoke Newington netted tens of thousands of pounds by running their own drug dealers, planted drugs on people who were not drug dealers, solicited bribes, offered drugs to people if they would testify, and assaulted and racially abused suspects, almost all of them black.

Conservative Members, and perhaps even some of my own colleagues, may comment, "People would say that, wouldn't they?" However, the current major investigation into alleged corruption at Stoke Newington was triggered not by the fantasies of drug dealers or the complaints of local people, but in another way. Time and again when Customs and Excise officials planned VAT raids in Stoke Newington jointly with the local police, they arrived only to find that the suspects had gone. Customs and Excise began to believe that Stoke Newington police were on the take, as when they planned raids without involving the police, the supects would be there when they arrived. As a result of the notion that so long as they did not involve the police they would hit the jackpot, the investigation into corruption at Stoke Newington was dubbed "operation jackpot". These may sound like the kind of allegations that suspected drug dealers would be bound to make, but the investigation arose not because of complaints from my constituents but because Customs and Excise believed that the police must be "on the take".

In April 1991, the Russell inquiry into operation jackpot began. Since then, PC Roy Lewendowski, a policeman at Stoke Newington, has been arrested and charged with theft and VAT fraud. Another Stoke Newington policeman, PC Palumbo, was heavily censured by Judge Pitman in the case of Crown v. Noel. Eight police officers have been transferred from Stoke Newington police station. Another Stoke Newington policeman, Sergeant Gerry Carroll, shot himself in a cell at Barkingside police station. PCs Palumbo and Galbraithe have been suspended from operational duties. In a case involving Stoke Newington police—the case of Dennis Bramble—the prosecution offered no evidence because of

"the unreliability of police evidence".

In July this year, Pearl Cameron, a Hackney resident, was sentenced to five years imprisonment in relation to drug dealing, but the judge commented:

"I sentence you on the basis that your dealing stemmed from the advances of a corrupt police officer."

The police officer involved is at Stoke Newington police station. Since the inquiry began, 27 officers at Stoke Newington police station have been served with regulation 7 notices in respect of allegations that they have been involved in drug trafficking.

The inquiry is not based simply on rumour, or on allegations made by suspect sources. This is one of the most serious allegations of corruption involving the Metropolitan police for many years. Senior officers within the Metropolitan police have said that the level of corruption suggested by the inquiry rivals that discovered in the West Midlands police force.

I remind the Home Secretary that the Russell inquiry has been in progress for nearly two years. It is a matter of urgency for the inquiry to report, so that the shadow hanging over Stoke Newington police station can be dispelled. Until it reports, no one will know the truth of the allegations, and the trust and co-operation that Stoke Newington ought to receive from the community will remain in jeopardy. We were promised that the inquiry would report in the autumn. Where is the report? These are grave allegations, and it is not fair either to the Stoke Newington community or to honest policemen to delay the process in this way.

According to the allegations, there appears to have been a ring of corrupt policemen at Stoke Newington police station. A number of people have been convicted and have served sentences on the basis of evidence from officers at Stoke Newington who are now being investigated by the police. What steps are being taken to establish how many cases may be involved? What steps are being taken to inform the solicitors of the people concerned? A number of cases are currently going through the courts on the basis of evidence from Stoke Newington officers who are now under investigation. What steps are being taken to ascertain how many such cases there are?

As I have said, these are grave allegations, and I do not repeat them in the House lightly. I put it to the Minister, however, that if we are to succeed in a crusade against drugs on the streets of London, the police must have the co-operation of the community. Such allegations, constantly repeated, cannot help that co-operation. The Russell report is long overdue. We in Stoke Newington—and everyone who trusts in the Metropolitan police—must urge the Minister to encourage the Metropolitan police to produce that report speedily.

It has been a common ploy of Conservative politicians over the years to accuse Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors of being soft on crime. It is an easy charge to make and it is often made, but there is no way in which any genuine representative of the people of inner London could be soft on crime. If there is any group of people who suffer from crime, be it street violence, crimes against property or the terrible menace of drugs, it is our constituents. During the five years that I have been a Member of Parliament one of the issues that has caused most concern to my constituents has been the effects of crime, and their perception in some cases either that police strategy is not appropriate or that it is difficult to understand.

No one suffers more from crime than the people that Opposition Members seek to represent. If we raise allegations of malpractice and complaints about the incidence of corruption, it is only in the long run to increase the chance of improving confidence in the police and co-operation with the police. That will be the basis for a successful war against crime in the Metropolitan police area.

After three months preparation for this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful that you have called me to speak. I am sorry that there has been so little time to discuss the policing of the metropolis. The genesis of my interest in the subject is that in my constituency I have the Port of London police authority, the second oldest police force in the country, which is justifiably proud of its reputation. It is a very professional body, but recently it was privatised. I deprecate its privatisation.

Had there been more time, I should have liked to spend longer on that subject. However, the privatisation of the Port of London police authority has been referred to in earlier debates by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). All I wish to do today, therefore, is to pay tribute to the officers of the British Transport police authority, and in particular to its small federation which fought vigorously to guard the independence of the police authority and the office of constable.

Earlier this year, it took the authority to court to resist privatisation. I refer in particular to the chairman and secretary of the Port of London's police federation, Harry Johnson and Martin McGrath. I have the utmost regard for the way in which they defended the interests of their members and tried jealously to guard the independence of those police officers. The privatisation of that police force has implications for other forces. British Transport police are deeply anxious about the threat of privatisation of their services, particularly when legislation to privatise rail services has been passed, and they have not been sufficiently reassured.

Members of the Metropolitan police are also anxious about the fact that the Government are contemplating the privatisation of some Metropolitan police functions. We know that there are predators about. Security firms would like to be able to police London's orbital road, the M25. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical assurance that the Government are not contemplating privatisation of highly regarded police functions in both the capital and elsewhere.

As for the flawed nature of the Sheehy inquiry, the Home Secretary has again refused to include consideration by that inquiry of forces not under the control of the Home Office. It is nonsense to set up an inquiry to look into the role of the police but to exclude British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and many other professional constabularies which are under the jurisdiction of other Ministers. It is offensive to those police officers. By refusing to include the British Transport police, the Home Secretary snubbed his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. We were told by the Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), during the Committee stage of the Bill that seeks to privatise coal and rail that the Secretary of State for Transport had asked the Home Secretary to include the British Transport police. The Home Secretary confirmed that he had turned down the request of his ministerial colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. That is something that I very much regret.

I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) about the Royal Parks constabulary and British Transport police. Those two important law enforcement agencies should have been considered more in the debate. I invite the Home Secretary to consider whether the two forces should have co-jurisdiction with the Metropolitan police. If British Transport police officers were outside St. Stephen's entrance, as they were a few nights ago, they would have powers of arrest only as citizens and not as police officers. That puts them in some difficulty, causes embarrassment, and is misunderstood by the general public. Similarly, if the Royal Parks constabulary were in the vicinity of a royal park but outside its curtilage, they would be frustrated and embarrassed if they tried to act as police officers. I hope that that difficulty will be taken on board.

Given more time, I should have liked to discuss many other issues, such as the lack of employment protection for many non-Home Office police officers and the fact that the Home Secretary has no control over a plethora of minor police forces. I very much regret that he has no way of controlling the recruitment or considering the suitability of those policemen.

In preparation for today's debate, I spent a morning with the traffic division of Essex police, who share responsibility for policing the M25. When I arranged my visit with the assistant chief constable, he urged me to do as his officers instructed because of the danger of the M25. He said, "Stand where we tell you and exercise great caution because we have lost some police officers". The police officers who came to collect me were subdued because the previous evening a colleague of theirs in the traffic division had been killed on the M25. I pay tribute to police officer Chris Wiggins and extend to his family and colleagues in the Essex traffic division and the Metropolitan police my condolences and, I am sure, those of the whole House.

The traffic division should have received greater consideration today. It is not the most glamorous aspect of policing, but it is probably the most technically and professionally skilled aspect of it. In the final speech from the Back Benches in this debate, I am pleased to pay tribute to the police officers who try to maintain mobility and enforce the law in dangerous, hazardous and sometimes stressful conditions on and around the M25.

We have had an extremely interesting debate, in which many hon. Members have spoken on a wide range of topics.

Every issue is important and I propose to raise a few of my own, but the debate is a deeply inadequate substitute for the proper analysis, goal-setting and shared policy making that would be the function of an elected Metropolitan police authority. We welcome the Home Secretary's apparent new attitude to the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) set out our approach to policing, which recognises the need to tackle crime effectively and seeks to address the underlying reasons for its continued growth. I have special responsibility for community and race relations, and it is perhaps in those two areas that the Metropolitan police have been most sorely tested in recent years.

We need to ask what the people of London want from their police service. They want a police service that they can trust and which will uphold the law and people's rights. They want a visible police presence where officers know the local area and a service that acknowledges that it is part of, and accountable to, the community. They want to be sure that if there is corruption or malpractice it will be rooted out. They want a service that is open about its activities, not secretive and defensive, and they wish, as we all do, to have a service that is honest, efficient and respected. The police themselves could surely wish for nothing less, and there are signs that they are listening.

The Metropolitan police under the leadership of Sir Peter Imbert has been in the vanguard of those trying to change police culture. As we have heard today, new management policies have been introduced under the Plus programme in an attempt to tackle the over-bureaucratic nature of the service and to develop a sense of corporate identity. Change at ground level, through sector policing, will be equally profound, but will it deliver the service that Londoners want and stem the increase in crime?

Theoretically, sector policing should result in closer co-operation between the police, the community and other agencies, but there is a real concern about the level of cover, which has been expressed today by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). One experiment in community and estate policing with which I am familiar led to a reduction of 60 per cent. in serious crime—but it involved increasing the number of home beat officers from one to six. Undoubtedly, it is feared that nothing like that level of cover would be maintained under sector policing. The Met still has some way to go, not least among some police constables on the beat, in winning the argument that resources will be more effectively deployed under sector policing.

The composition of the new local sector working groups will be vital. A truly dynamic relationship between the community and the police requires a high level of public participation, especially from the more sceptical sections of society. I have no doubt that we shall not stem the rising tide of criminality in our cities unless we greatly increase trust and co-operation between communities and the police.

There has been much recent criticism of the sensationalising of crime statistics. The fact remains, however, that London is the crime capital of Europe. We can be thankful that we do not head the league table for crimes against the person, but we have the highest overall rate of crime—specifically, at 60 crimes per thousand population, we have the highest rate of burglary and car crime. As we have heard repeatedly today, overall crime rates increased by 11 per cent. last year, having increased by 10 per cent. the year before.

Those crimes are primarily the activities of individual young men, often still in their formative years. They are not mature conspirators controlling large fortunes, whose hands are on the levers of power. How is it that we have so signally failed to create a more law-abiding and socially responsible community?

Of course, the person who commits the crime must bear the responsibility for the damage and hurt that he has caused. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), I am all too conscious of the appalling price paid by many of the victims of crime in London. Nevertheless, we ignore at our peril the wisdom of Sir Peter Imbert's words which have already been quoted, attributing the growth in crime in part to the

"marginalisation of some elements in our society".

Sir Peter continued:

"There is a need to offer hope to the most disadvantaged".

When the Home Secretary spoke at the Tory party conference about those same young people, he threatened more punitive and draconian measures against those who offend. Perhaps his words were merely a sop to his audience, for he did not refer to those threats today—but neither did he offer a strategy to deliver new hope to our inner cities. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson), who made an excellent speech, in asking how the Government aim to deter young people from a life of crime.

Does the Minister honestly believe that destroying the youth service and cutting training, amid record levels of homelessness and unemployment, will have a neutral effect on crime rates? Most Londoners do not believe that for a minute. They want an effective programme of crime prevention, and nothing that the Home Secretary has said today amounts to such a strategy.

Will the Minister tell us the rationale behind continuing to fund one-off and piecemeal projects rather than having an overall strategy? Surely the Home Office has enough information on the success or failure of individual projects in London to be able to sanction a comprehensive crime prevention strategy. I can offer the Home Secretary plenty of evidence from my constituency where the safer cities campaign, a task force, the drugs prevention unit, Lewisham council and the police have all been involved in a number of positive initiatives.

One example is Hawke tower, a 23-storey block of previously highly unpopular council flats with a high crime rate. Today, after the installation of a comprehensive security concierge system, there are no burglaries and a high level of tenant satisfaction. Which London authorities can find the money similarly to treat all their tower blocks? We also have the Ilderton motor project which is tackling car crime, one of our biggest crimes, and helping young people to overcome their own deviant behaviour. Where is the money to run such projects across the capital?

Even more seriously, where are the programmes and expertise to analyse local data, to predict local trends and to take preventive action? Despite police computers systematically recording burglaries throughout the area, it was only tenants' action, followed by help from the safer cities campaign, which revealed that one estate in Lewisham had a burglary rate twice the national average. Clearly, there is a need for making much better local use of crime data being collected Londonwide.

Safer cities has been a success, but there are only five projects in London. Will the Minister tell us whether they will end in 1994–95? What is their future? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked, what will happen about the 20 new projects promised in the Conservative manifesto?

Surely the Government must see that implementing the proposals of the Morgan report is the only way foward. Or is there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield suggested, an ideological block? Central to the recommendations of the Morgan report is an endorsement of a local, multi-agency approach with proper status and funding. Morgan recommended:

"local authorities working in conjunction with the police, should have clear statutory responsibilities for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at a local level a multi-agency approach to community safety."

I repeat that there is widespread support for Morgan throughout the crime prevention community, including strong support from the Metropolitan police. I ask the Minister to tell us clearly today when the Government propose to act on the Morgan report.

I turn now to another specific and highly sensitive area of police-community relations—racial violence. One of the most sickening recent developments in Europe has been the rise of neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing activity. Historically, racism has flourished in times of economic hardship and London today appears to be no exception.

Over the past few years, there has been an horrific rise in racial attacks. In London last year, tenants reported more than 1,700 racial harassment cases to councils, but, because of the difficulties of testifying, only eight perpetrators were evicted. In Greenwich, racial attacks are now running at about 20 a month and there have been three racially inspired murders in the area.

The Home Secretary will know that the Commission for Racial Equality considers existing legislation to be inadequate to deal with the increasing incidence of racial crime. I am sure that the House wishes to know whether the Government have considered making a new criminal offence for racially motivated violence.

It is clear to us that many senior officers in the Met share our concern about the increasing scale of racist attacks and that they are taking the appropriate initiative. The new system of reporting, to which the Home Secretary referred, whereby the police officer no longer decides what is or is not a racist attack, but accepts the statement of the victim, is to be commended.

There are many other important initiatives, which I am unable to mention now because of lack of time. I commend the establishing of the racial incident unit in the Plumstead division, which is undoubtedly accounting for the increased reporting of the number of incidents in that area of south London. I make no apology for again mentioning Lewisham, where the police consultative committee, in consultation with the police, safer cities and the council, recently launched a poster campaign encouraging people to contact the police if they were racially harassed or attacked. That is an important initiative. I hope that it will be repeated elsewhere, giving a clear message that racism is not tolerated in this city.

The Met must also crack down hard on racism within its ranks. I note that, last year, there were 50 reported complaints about racially discriminatory behaviour. Sometimes as a result of their own work, the police may gain a distorted view. For example, a recent Goldsmiths' college report found that 79 per cent. of known drug users in Lewisham were white, yet 50 per cent. of those arrested by the police were black. Of crack users known to the police, 95 pr cent. are black, whereas 85 per cent. of crack users known to other agencies are white. We would all do well to reflect on those findings, especially the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to domestic violence. Like her, I congratulate those involved in the establishment of the 62 domestic violence units in the Met area. Although I agree with my hon. Friends that there is much more work to be done in developing the units—in particular, working closely with local women's groups—I think that the DVUs represent a considerable achievement.

I have been glad of the opportunity to acknowledge the good work done by the Metropolitan police as well as to highlight some of its difficulties. I join all those who have commended Sir Peter Imbert on the positive steps that he has taken while in office. I congratulate Paul Condon on his appointment and wish him well in continuing the process of improving the Metropolitan police. I must emphasise, however, that while the Government continue to turn their back on the social problems that they are creating by their own policies and while they refuse to invest appropriately in tried and tested remedies, crime will continue to increase. Until we give the people of London hope and a sense of their communities' value, the Metropolitan police and many other agencies will continue to pick up the pieces of the Government's broken policies.

The range of issues covered in the debate is an indication of the extent to which we all look to the police for help and support. They are in the front line to help our constituents when they are the victims of crime. They pick up the pieces in times of emergency. They advise on crime prevention and they work in the community to help our young people avoid crime.

There have been a number of common themes in this interesting and varied debate. There has been widespread praise for Sir Peter Imbert for his contribution to the Metropolitan police and the leadership that he has given. An equally widespread welcome has been given to Paul Condon, as he contemplates his new appointment with effect from 1 February

Many hon. Members have emphatically condemned IRA bombings. The Government remain unshakeably committed to the defeat of terrorism in all its forms throughout the United Kingdom with all the means at our disposal. There have been 13 incidents in London since 7 October, resulting in the death of one man and injuries to 18 other people. It is only good fortune that has prevented further casualties. The current campaign of Provisional IRA attacks in London shows yet again that the organisation has no regard for the safety of the public. The public need to be alert at all times and to report anything suspicious to the police immediately.

Hon. Members have paid tribute to the memories of Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison. I add my tribute to those already voiced.

The other theme in the debate has been that of partnership, referred to first by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary who said that there had been a long tradition in this country of policing by consent. Police work and the campaign against crime depend on a partnership that involves not only the police but local authorities, voluntary agencies, businesses and the whole community. Sir Peter Imbert's strategy makes clear the commitment of the Metropolitan police to provide a policing style which has that objective at its root, deep in the community. Sector policing is a key element in ensuring that the service strengthens its links with local communities and builds on the benefits gained from working in partnership.

As has been the case in such debates in previous years, the large number of hon. Members who have spoken have raised many questions. Inevitably, the time available for me to respond has run short. I will cover what ground I can on the points that have been raised and will write to those hon. Members whose points I cannot answer before the debate concludes at 2.30 pm.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to the role of police authorities. It is clear that there is a strong welcome for what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had to say about that subject. We are looking at the role of police authorities generally, including the rather different arrangement in London. No decisions have been taken yet, but we welcome the contributions in the debate. Changes for the provinces or for London would involve legislation and there would, of course, be consultation before they were introduced.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and other hon. Members mentioned the Morgan report. The recommendations in the report have taken longer to consider than was originally anticipated because they were more wide ranging than had been expected under the working group's terms of reference. Several of the points raised went beyond the realm of central Government and they are still being considered. We hope to be able to respond to the main recommendations fairly soon. We are considering the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the local authority associations on the report's recommendations.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and several Opposition Members also referred to crime and economic conditions. Recorded crime has risen steadily over the past 40 years. Since 1970 there has been an average annual increase of 5 per cent. There are many possible explanations for that, not least the fact that increasing affluence has increased the opportunities for crime.

Low incomes or unemployment do not cause crime. There are no excuses for lawlessness and hooliganism. It would be wholly wrong and highly condescending to suggest that people on low incomes are bound to be criminals. There is no single cause of crime and many people with problems or disadvantages do not offend.

The House has paid tribute to the outgoing Commissioner. Does the Minister agree with this sentence of the Commissioner's report:

"There is a close correlation between the map of crime and the map of deprivation"?

I have made my views absolutely clear. I do not believe that there is a direct link between deprivation and incidence of crime.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made an excellent speech in which he made it clear that he represents the Police Federation. He raised a number of important points. He asked about video recordings of interviews. There is tape recording of interviews in virtually all serious cases. That provides important protection for suspects and the police. The Home Office has commissioned independent research into video recordings on the basis of three pilot schemes where suspects' interviews were recorded on video tape. Professor Baldwin's report on that subject, which was received and published last summer, is now being considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also mentioned DNA testing and its possible greater scope. He referred to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee that wider powers of DNA testing could be introduced with a DNA data base built from such samples. That would undoubtedly be a powerful investigatory tool. However, taking samples without consent and retaining samples of innocent suspects eliminated from inquiries would raise major ethical and legal inquiries. That issue falls squarely within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure and no doubt will be considered in that fashion.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members referred to those who carry knives. I can appreciate the widespread concern at the recent knife attacks on police officers, but it would be impractical to impose further restrictions on the sale of knives that have legitimate everyday uses. That is why the Government's approach has been to tighten the law on the possession of knives in public. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, allows a constable to search any person when he has reasonable grounds to believe that that person is committing the offence of carrying a knife in public without good reason. We fully appreciate public concern regarding the misuse of knives, but we do not think that there would be any advantage in amending the law at this stage.

rose—

I think that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has not been present throughout the debate, wishes to intervene. Provided that he is very brief, I shall accept his intervention.

I was present for the opening and closing speeches. The passage to which the Minister referred is not popular with police officers. They feel that it does not give them proper search powers. Although a general search power is not acceptable, a specific search power in connection with knife carrying would have all-party support. Will the Minister review that aspect?

I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind. The House has also heard my views.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who has great experience in all matters relating to policing, talked about civilianisation of the control room and the best possible deployment of police officers. I hope that he will accept first and foremost that, of course, it is the Commissioner's operational responsibility to decide how officers are deployed, but we are committed to a programme of civilianisation, as my right hon. and learned Friend has highlighted.

It is a waste of resources to use police officers for duties that do not require police powers or experience, and control room duties have been identified as suitable for civilianisation. That matter is proceeding at the moment. So far, 520 posts are being civilianised, with similar programmes to follow in 1993 and 1994.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke about the safer cities programme. The Government are currently considering the future of the safer cities programme and its possible expansion, subject to available resources. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned borough-based policing. At present there are 69 Metropolitan police divisions compared with 35 London boroughs, plus the home counties districts that are policed by the Met. The Metropolitan police are in the process of reducing the number of divisions, deliberately to align them with borough boundaries. That reflects the intention of the Metropolitan police to develop closer partnerships with local communities to ensure that policing policy is as responsive as possible to local needs.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Deptford, talked about racist attacks. On this occasion, there was not much in the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey with which one could disagree, but he highlighted the importance issue of racist attacks. Racial attracks are wholly unacceptable to the Government. They cause pain and anxiety to victims and greatly harm race relations. The Home Office has issued guidance to forces on the response to such crimes, promoting the multi-agency approach.

In December 1991—these points were mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott)—the interdepartmental racial attacks group published a follow-up to its 1989 report. The follow-up report concentrated on good practice already established in some agencies and made recommendations for further progress. The Government make it absolutely clear that that progress has the highest possible priority.

As the hon. Member for Sedgefield said, the police cannot tackle the problem on their own. I agree with him about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made the same point. It is important to involve other agencies in partnership, where necessary. One useful example is the project called "Southwark Challenges Racial Abuse", which was opened in March 1992. It is a multi-agency programme aimed at tackling racial abuse. It involves, among others, the local borough, British Rail, London Transport, the British Transport police and the Southwark police community consultation group.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) referred to juvenile offenders. She said that a relatively small proportion were persistent offenders.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Remaining order of the day No. 26 is the Second Reading of a private Member's Bill. I should be grateful for your guidance as to how my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) can ensure that the Bill is not lost.

I suggest that the hon. Member goes upstairs to the Public Bill Office or the Table Office.

I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the continued denial of human rights in China. It is a timely debate because of Lord Howe's forthcoming visit to China to investigate and discuss the issue on behalf of my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, following my right hon. Friend's own visit to Beijing last year. The debate today will provide the House with probably its only opportunity to record its current anxieties, make proposals and obtain a response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Now that Hong Kong has fewer than five years before its return to China, it is appropriate that we should become less tolerant of China's performance on human rights, in the interest of preserving those rights for Hong Kong. British policy on China in recent years has been one of hypocrisy and double standards. Our response to what took place in Tiananmen square was nothing to what our response has been or would have been to other communist countries and totalitarian states perpetrating less transparent atrocities on their own people.

For example, our refusal to recognise Taiwan is a betrayal of those Chinese who fought and fled communism and are now moving into a competitive, multi-party democracy. Our response to the continued occupation of Tibet and the clear persecution of its people should have been no different from our response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Instead, we continue to be almost indifferent to the plight of Tibet. The Chinese Government recognise that policy of appeasement not as one of strength or principle but as one of weakness, and it can only send the worst possible signals about what our response would be if China ignored the Basic Law after 1997.

The atrocities of Tiananmen square a little more than three years ago should have been the last straw for the free world. For more than 40 years we have turned a blind eye to what a few evil men have imposed on I billion people in a country which was a civilisation when Europeans lived in caves. All the evidence has been forthcoming of a totalitarian state as bad as that of Hitler or Stalin, of the genocide of millions, the forced abortion of millions, the incarceration of millions and the slavery of millions. There is state control of the media, labour, property and religion. There are prisoners of conscience, labour camps and torture chambers.

Whatever inhumanities mankind has perpetrated elsewhere in the world appear to have been applied in China with perhaps greater excess than ever before. Yet it has been expedient for us to ignore it, excuse it or accommodate it, in the hope that humanitarian reforms would follow the evident economic reforms. Why is that? Is it because China is the world's largest nation, with one fifth of the world's population, because it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, because of the indefinite status of Hong Kong? Whatever the reasons, the Chinese authorities knew that they could commit the massacre of Tiananmen square with impunity, and because the world did nothing of note in response to Tiananmen square China continues to persecute, incarcerate and murder its citizens.

I hope that our noble Friend will take with him all the knowledge and information available on those atrocities to impress on the Chinese leadership that such behaviour, which was never acceptable, totally contradicts the spirit of the new world order as well as the universal nature of the UN declaration to which China is a party. I shall refer to some of the abuses, before concluding with measures that I believe that our noble Friend should seek during his visit.

As we know from the reports of Asia Watch and Amnesty International, the effects of Tiananmen square are lasting and continue to this day. Between 10,000 and 30,000 people have been arrested, many have been tried and executed in secret, and others have been tried and convicted without proper trial or defence. Amnesty reported that 960 death sentences were imposed and 750 executions were carried out in 1990, and that more than 1,000 Chinese were executed in 1991, with unofficial sources suggesting that up to 20,000 executions may have taken place last year, according to a ministerial reply to me on 12 March. While it is true that some prominent leaders have received more lenient sentences to placate international opinion, in the provinces, away from the mainstream, many people have been gaoled for up to 20 years for making speeches in support of democracy and reform.

The Chinese communist party has reinforced its authority by bugging, video taping and tailing its citizens in Beijing and elsewhere in a way which is scarcely credible today. The practice that prisoners awaiting execution are paraded at public rallies is particularly inhuman and uncivilised. It is reminiscent of mediaeval times and is surely contrary to the UN convention against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, which China ratified in 1988.

From the testimonies of Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in the Chinese gulags—the laogai—before being allowed to come to the west, and from other reports, we know that political and religious prisoners produce goods which China exports to the west. One of the reasons for the success of joint ventures with China is the fact that labour is so cheap. The laogai goods are made by labourers who are punished and tortured if they do not meet targets. They include tea, canned and leather goods, shoes, towels and stockings, as well as machine parts and radiators. Although illegal, they are being sold in this country. They are difficult to identify, but I understand that a Europewide campaign has just been launched to expose those major chain stores which sell them.

From the recent complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to the International Labour Organisation, we know of more repression of trade unions and the detention of hundreds of members. The report criticises a new code of working practices which bars workers from forming or joining free trade organisations, and refers to Han Dongfan who led China's first independent trade union movement in June 1989. He was freed from imprisonment last year on health grounds, but has only recently recovered from being beaten by officials as he left a tribunal in Beijing early this year.

Thanks to what was told to last year's conference of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, we understand better how Chinese women, pregnant without permission, will be harassed and threatened either to abort or risk the destruction of their homes.

From the reports from Christian Solidarity International, CSI, and the International Society for Human Rights, ISHR, we have learnt of new repression against Christians in China following a central committee directive on religious activity issued in February last year and known as document six. It was aimed at independent churches that had not registered with the state-controlled "Three Self Patriotic Movement".

Such developments were in response to the growth in religious belief, particularly among young people who had been alienated by the events at Tiananmen square, and the consequent decline in the membership of the Communist party. Such movement has been reinforced by the failure of the attempted coup in Moscow last year. It has led to strict controls on the importation of religious books and tapes, restrictions on the building of new churches, limits on theological training and baptisms, and the intimidation and surveillance of known Christians.

The movement has included the arrest of Pastor Moses Xie, one of China's best known house church leaders and Christian evangelists, and the repeated interrogation of others such as Pastor Samuel Lamb for refusing to register his church—his real name is Lin Xiangao and he has spent a total of 21 years in prison for his Christian activities.

Several elderly Roman Catholic bishops who refused to abandon their allegiance to the Pope have been imprisoned. From a ministerial reply to my question about some of those men, I was glad to learn that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had made representations to Premier Li Peng in January, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he visited China last year.

Of particular concern must be recent reports of the deaths in mysterious and violent circumstances in police custody of Bishops Fan Xueyan, Shi Churye and Li Zhenrony. Those men were aged 86, 71 and 72. What sort of people are the Chinese leaders who can allow such atrocities against those elderly men? What do they fear from them or from up to 50 million Christians in a country of more than 1 billion people? Perhaps the Chinese leaders know that religion, far from being the opiate of the masses, is the real threat to communism—the spiritual alternative which triumphed in eastern Europe and brought down the Soviet empire.

When the history of communism in red China is written by some Chinese Solzhenitsyn, as it will be one day, it will record more victims and atrocities than anything now coming to light in the Soviet Union, Poland or Cambodia. When it does, the people of the world will ask, as they did of the holocaust,

"You must have known—why, then, did you do nothing?"

The forthcoming visit of Lord Howe to China provides us with a new opportunity to impress on the Chinese leadership that we cannot tolerate such atrocities and human rights abuses any longer. I hope that Lord Howe will go armed with a copy of the Hansard report of today's debate, supported with detailed references of all the abuses since Tiananmen square, and an up-to-date list of prisoners of conscience.

I commend Lord Howe to take a copy of the recent Asia Watch report, "Anthems of Defeat—the Crackdown in Hunan Province 1989–1992", which is probably the most comprehensive account of systematic human rights violations to have emerged from China in the past 15 years. I hope that Lord Howe will press China to accede to the two human rights covenants of the United Nations: the international covenant on civic and political rights, and the international covenant on economic social and cultural rights. I hope that he will press China to accept international Red Cross inspections of Chinese prisons and to investigate the widespread reports of torture.

I hope that Lord Howe will deplore the fact that China is the largest supplier of arms and military equipment to remaining totalitarian regimes, including those which have been the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses, such as Myrimar and the Khmer Rouge. I hope that he will challenge the Chinese leadership to accept a visit by the Pope—it would be one of the most encouraging gestures that it could make to allay the fears of Hong Kong for its future after 1997. Not long ago, China pathetically even refused to allow a plane carrying the Pope to fly over Chinese territory.

Last week, the 14th congress of the Communist Party of China committed itself to a freer, more market-oriented economy, which we welcome, but it also confirmed the party's near-totalitarian monopoly of political power at the expense of fundamental freedoms—for which there can be no justification. Today, China remains the last of the evil empires. I hope that my noble Friend Lord Howe will succeed in conveying to the Chinese leadership our abhorrence of its human rights record, and the whole House will wish him well in that task.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is well known and respected for his fervent advocacy of human rights world wide. We are indebted to him for bringing these important matters to the attention of the House. I begin by assuring him that human rights constitute a central element in our dialogue with the Chinese authorities, and are a regular feature of our ministerial contacts with them.

As my hon. Friend will recognise, our interests in and dealings with China go wider than this single issue—important and disturbing though it is. China is an important country with a long history and a proud and industrious people. We have a common interest, in an increasingly uncertain world, in discussions with the Chinese over a full range of international issues. In recent years, China has been pressing ahead rapidly with a welcome process of economic reform, which has resulted in an impressive improvement in living standards.

We are encouraged by the outcome of the recent party congress in Peking, with its emphasis on developing the market economy and bringing through more youthful leaders. Our other shared interest, which is much in people's minds this week, and to which my hon. Friend referred, is Hong Kong. Over Hong Kong, we have a particular and onerous responsibility which this Government are determined to discharge fully and honourably.

No one would be foolish enough to claim that it is for us to try to run China's internal affairs, but, as a democratic country, it is entirely right for Britain to urge China to observe internationally recognised standards of human rights—and we do so.

We have often emphasised to the Chinese authorities the

"universality of international standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Those are not just western or Christian standards, but apply to all countries and regions. The concept is enshrined in articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations charter. Article 55 states:

"the United Nations shall promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."

Article 56 states:

"all Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organisation for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."

The specific rights and freedoms codified in the universal declaration of human rights and two international covenants transcend national, religious, cultural and ideological frontiers. Those specific rights and freedoms are all equally applicable to all persons in all circumstances. We believe that the inability of a country to ensure the exercising of any of those rights—for example, the right to an adequate standard of living—cannot be used as an excuse to ignore obligations in respect of another right, such as the right to freedom from arbitrary detention.

Human rights are no longer exempt from external pressure on grounds of "state sovereignty". The United Nations Security Council endorses that by recognising that gross violations may endanger international peace and security. And, of course, United Nation's peacekeeping efforts now incorporate human rights verification.

China has a long history of subordinating the rights of the individual to the will of the state. Tiananmen square was a tragic illustration of that, and one which the Government and people of Britain, and the west generally, have not forgotten. I am afraid that my hon. Friend did less than justice to the Government's position. In the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen, we and our western partners introduced a number of measures—for example, in relation to aid and to high-level contacts—to bring home the strength of western feelings about those events. As time passed and some degree of relaxation developed—for example, the lifting of martial law and the release of numbers of detainees—we and our partners decided at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 October 1991 that most of those measures should be rescinded. The European Community and its member states nevertheless take every opportunity to remind the Chinese of their obligations towards their own people, and about the widely felt anxieties elsewhere about their behaviour.

I am well aware of the depth of parliamentary and public concern in this country about human rights in China—including Tibet—which I share. I consistently receive a large volume of letters from Members of Parliament and from the public on the subject. The Government have been extremely active with the Chinese authorities on this issue, as has been recognised by many of the non-governmental organisations most interested in the subject.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised our concerns with Premier Li Peng during his visit to Peking in September last year, in New York in January and in Rio in June. The Foreign Secretary and I raised human rights with the Vice-Foreign Minister during his visit to Britain in July. I took the opportunity then to hand over a list of names of individuals who are of particular concern, as well as copies of Amnesty International's report—published in May this year—on the situation in Tibet, and its list of appeal cases. More recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with the Chinese Foreign Minister during their meetings—both bilateral and in the troika—in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly last month. The Chinese can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this country.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, Tibet is an area of particular concern. Human rights issues there are undoubtedly entangled with aspirations for independence; but the fact is that Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent country. It is not the same as Afghanistan. Nevertheless, we regularly speak to the Chinese about the need for better protection of human rights in Tibet, and about the need for a more decent autonomy for Tibet. We have consistently encouraged the Chinese to enter into a dialogue with Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama. We believe that this is the most promising solution to the problem of Tibet. The Chinese can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in the House—and more widely—about their behaviour in Tibet.

Some people, like my hon. Friend, fear that what the Chinese are doing today in Tibet they will do in Hong Kong after 1997. I do not believe that. All the Government's endeavours are directed to building an edifice that will survive the transition. The joint declaration, an international treaty registered at the United Nations, lays down a series of guarantees for human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. For example, it provides that

"rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association … of religious belief … will be protected by law."

In addition, the Hong Kong Government have enacted a Bill of Rights, which enshrines in Hong Kong law the international covenant on civil and political rights, which the joint declaration and the future Basic Law guarantee will remain in force. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is right to build—as we have been—as lasting an edifice as possible for the guaranteeing of human rights in Hong Kong.

I should say a word about Taiwan, as it was raised by my hon. Friend. We do not recognise the authorities in Taiwan as the Government of China, which is their claim. Nor do any major countries. We cannot recognise two Governments for China. I do not fully understand my hon. Friend's point. Commercial, educational and cultural exchanges with Taiwan and this country are thriving, and I welcome that.

Chinese behaviour will not change overnight; Chinese history, culture and social arrangements differ from ours. There are, however, a number of positive signs. The Chinese are more ready to discuss the issues. They have published several White Papers in an effort to achieve greater understanding of their position on human rights, including those in Tibet. They argue that the provision of food, clothing, housing and a secure and stable environment are the most important rights. And on the positive side, there is no doubt that China, with its massive population of 1.1 billion, is currently making great strides in developing its economy and reforming its industrial base. It has gone a long way towards eliminating poverty and deprivation, and we welcome that. Maintaining both economic progress and stability is important; so is international opinion. Although the Chinese authorities do not accept all our ideas on human rights—which are based on the standards elaborated in the universal declaration of human rights—there is evidence that persistent pressure can lead to a point at which a poor human rights record becomes a matter that will be addressed.

My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of unpleasant abuses of human rights. The Government have raised on many occasions their particular concerns—the continued persecution of religious believers, the continued detention of individuals for the free expression of their political beliefs and the situation in Tibet.

We and our European Community partners have raised our concerns over the persecution of religious believers on a number of occasions. The matter of the persecution of Catholic bishops was specifically raised by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials earlier this month with the Chinese embassy here. I was also dismayed and concerned to learn of the incident in Henan province on 8 September and the reported imprisonment of 120 religious believers. We have raised the cases of a number of individuals who have been persecuted for their religious beliefs, including Pastor Moses Xie and Pastor Samuel Lamb. Some of these individuals were on the list handed to Premier Li Peng by the Prime Minister in New York in January. Others were included on a list of 40 cases of concern handed over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during his visit to China last year, and freedom of religious worship will be one of the areas of concern for the forthcoming mission led by Lord Howe.

We share with hon. Members a number of other concerns expressed by my hon. Friend: for example, the widespread use of the death penalty, the trade in human organs taken from executed Chinese prisoners and torture. We, our Community partners, and other like-minded Governments, will continue to press the Chinese to conform to their international and legal obligations.

At his meeting with Premier Li Peng in New York in January my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that a delegation should visit China to examine human rights and related issues. My hon. Friend has referred to that delegation. As the House will know, it is to be led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe. The Chinese have agreed that the visit will take place from 1 to 8 December. Its aim is to exchange views on human rights issues and to learn more about China's provisions and practices in this area. The precise terms of reference and itinerary are under discussion, and the arrangements are well in hand. The official host will be the Chinese People's Institute for Foreign Affairs.

Lord Howe will be accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and by the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) together with the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Tonbridge, Professor Anthony Dicks of the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Mr. Nigel Rodley of the university of Essex. The delegation is not on this occasion expecting to visit Tibet, but it certainly proposes to raise human rights questions relating to Tibet in the course of its programme in China. Lord Howe and his colleagues are in close touch with a number of experts and non-governmental organisations here in Britain. They will be briefed in advance by relevant NGOs, including Amnesty International, on all issues of concern, including persecution of religious believers, the situation in Tibet, torture, forced abortion, the death penalty, trade in human organs from executed prisoners, prison-made goods, and others.

I do not believe that we should avoid contact with China, even if we disagree with important elements in Chinese policies. We welcome China's opening to the world. The benefits are for all to see. We believe strongly in the advantages of such contacts. China's current economic development is astonishing. It benefits China, Hong Kong and all of us. As standards of economic prosperity rise, it is our hope and that of our Community partners that standards of democratic accountability will also rise. We are doing our bit to help this by, for example, training Chinese lawyers, accountants, administrators—some of the essential human resources which make good government possible.

So with China our policy is clear. We extend the hand of friendship and support. We encourage trade to the benefit of our people, as well as theirs. We encourage, through persuasion, training and example, a gradual spread of the tenets of Government accountability, and we take every opportunity to remind the Chinese that the world expects higher standards from them, in particular on human rights, as they emerge on to the world stage.