Clause 1
10:30 am
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, and you are correct that this sitting marks the beginning of the meaty scrutiny of the Bill.
I would like to place something on record—and I am sure that these are sentiments that the Minister shares—because the part of the Bill to which the amendments relate is entitled “Police reform”. It would be wrong of me not to begin scrutiny of the Bill without bearing testimony to the hard work that policemen and women of all ranks do up and down the land. It is a dangerous and demanding job, and the office of constable imposes on those men and women constraints that many ordinary employees are not under, such as restrictions on what they can do when they are off duty. I wish to begin on that positive note. Clauses in this part 1, on police reform, are important to me as the shadow Police Minister. My hon. Friends and I wish to conduct the debate in the spirit of instructive scrutiny, particularly in relation to the police.
Amendments 76, 48 and 77, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, go to the very heart of the accountability debate. Sir Ronnie Flanagan, in his final report on policing in spring last year, which was instigated by the Home Secretary’s predecessor but accepted and welcomed by the current Home Secretary, said at paragraph 7.12, page 81:
“If a body of citizens is dissatisfied with the service they receive or the scrutiny of it, they have little means of redress.”
He went on to talk about the need for more accountability in the scrutiny of the performance of the police service in England and Wales.
We all agree on that. Later in our proceedings, the Liberal Democrats will explore their view, with their alleged enhancement of police accountability. We have our own view, which is for a single directly elected police commissioner. In the clause stand part debate, we shall talk about the Government’s initial position in the Bill and their position now. My hon. Friend and I have sought an amendment to put a duty on police authorities to consult not just with people but with certain bodies. We are not confident that the views of local businesses, or even local authorities, are being taken account of by police authorities, and we think that the clause as drafted does nothing to redress that problem.
There is a reference in the amendment to seeking the views of the “business sector”. Why the business sector? The Federation of Small Businesses has—over many years, not just recently—worked long and hard to point out that crimes targeted against business are not, in the experience of its members, given due attention by some police forces. In short, businesses do not believe that they are listened to when it comes to reporting crime. That is not a new point in any shape or form. The business sector, particularly in this dire economic climate, should be listened to in many forums. Press reports show that as long ago as last August, Her Majesty’s Government and the Cabinet Office were predicting an increase in acquisitive, or property, crime as a result of the economic downturn. If acquisitive crime is on the increase, we need to pay more attention to the views of the business sector than we would do in boom times.
Let us look at some facts. Figures presented to me by the Federation of Small Businesses show that crimes against business make up a fifth of all recorded crime in the United Kingdom. According to the federation, only 45 per cent. of businesses report crime, because—rightly or wrongly—of their lack of faith in the system of police response. I think that that is too much of a blanket criticism, but it is certainly the case that in some police force areas, businesses do not report crime even through they have experienced it. They are not sure that it is worth the time and trouble to get what will perhaps be an inadequate response from the local force.