Statement by the Rt. Hon. Douglas Hurd CBE, Home Secretary, at a Press Conference at Conservative Central Office, 32 Smith Square, Westminster, on Tuesday 26 May 1987.
LAW AND ORDER
No other Party would have given as high a priority to fighting crime as we have done. Our record of action is unrivalled:
— Spending on the police has risen by almost a half, after allowing for inflation. There are 10,700 more officers and 6,000 more civil support staff.
— There have been 10 significant Government sponsored or supported Acts of Parliament to strengthen the Criminal Justice system over the last six years. These include major reforms of police powers, public order law, juvenile Justice, fraud investigations and the prosecution system. The maximum penalty for all the most serious crimes of violence is now life imprisonment and we have the toughest law in the West for the confiscation of drug traffickers' assets.
— The Prison Service, shamefully neglected by our predecessors, has had a 20 per cent increase in staff. The biggest prison building programme this century is under way and will yield 17,600 extra places. [end p1]
— We have been the first Government: to give emphasis to the needs of victims; to focus effectively on drugs and child abuse; and to launch a major drive for the prevention of crime.
I welcome the newly found enthusiasm of the Opposition for victim support and crime prevention; converts are always welcome. But they have brought no new constructive ideas to the fight against crime. Now we shall intensify the effort.
We will develop crime prevention through encouraging more community based schemes, like the 30,000 Neighbourhood Watch groups, NACRO's Safe Neighbourhoods Unit, and the Home Office Five Towns project.
Police manpower is being further increased. We shall give continuing priority to prevention and to mobilising a police/community partnership against crime. Chief Officers will be encouraged further to strengthen the number of officers on the streets. We will act against the sale and possession of specific objects which can only have an offensive purpose; I have commissioned a review of the adequacy of the law dealing with possession of knives.
The Opposition Parties may make a song and dance about the rise in recorded crime. But they know full well that crime was not invented in 1979 and that the rise has been pretty steady for the last 30 years. What they have failed to do is to prove that they would either devote the same high priority to law and order or that they have any fresh thoughts to offer. The Alliance seek salvation in a paper chase, setting up a new Government Department and Royal Commissions, and in letting people out of prison. [end p2]
The Labour Party's brave words on crime can be expected at midnight on June 11th to turn into a pumpkin. And out of that pumpkin will crawl one very large maggot. That maggot is their proposal for political control of the police. Their promise not to allow interference in police operations is meaningless. For a translation of what the Manifesto means and a fuller exposition of the policy we need look no further than “Protecting our People” published in April 1987 and written by Gerald Kaufman. Labour would put the police firmly in the political arena by giving local authorities the power to determine the ‘policing policies, priorities and methods of their Force’. That doesn't leave much scope for operational independence. There would clearly be political interference in the enforcement of the law; the police would, in some areas, be seen as a partisan force and would lose authority. It is extraordinary, in the case of London, that having been frightened to curb the anti-police activities of their hard-left Councils, the Labour leadership now intend to go one step further and deliver the police into their power. Second only to their policies on defence, Labour's plans for political control of the police will bring peril to our country. ENDS
(2) Conservative Party Archive: transcriptMr Hurd
I am delighted that, according to the radio, Mr Kinnock is devoting part of today to the subject of law and order. It gives him an opportunity to confirm or abandon this recent, specific, official pledge. If he confirms the pledge—we know that Mr Kaufman wrote it—then he will, in effect, be saying goodbye to the independence of the police in this country from political control.
Prime Minister
Thank you very much. Shall we have questions on this subject, including law and order in inner cities?
Q
The Government have continually laid stress on the effectiveness of Government spending. Has the Home Office set value-for-money targets for the police, and how do they measure up?
Mr Hurd
Yes, of course. One of the things we have been doing most strenuously is to say to the police forces, using the Inspectorate of Constabulary who advised me on this, “Are you, in fact, using this huge new investment which you have got to best effect? Are you, for example, putting civilians into jobs behind desks, into jobs behind computers and so releasing the professional trained police officer for work on the streets in the actual direct dealing with crime?” As we expand the police forces further, which we are doing at the moment, we are at the same time insisting that they do give the taxpayer and the citizen value for money in the way they organise their working.
Q
But the clear-up rates have gone down. Do not you take that as a measure of— [end p3]
Mr Hurd
I think that is a very crude, specific measure. Of course, the number of crimes cleared up has risen sharply, and the police are particularly effective in clearing up the crimes about which most people are concerned, mainly the crimes of violence. The clear-up rates for homicide, for crimes of violence is high, but there are many crimes against property which it is, in fact, much easier to prevent than to detect.
Q
You say that the crime rate has gone up pretty steadily for the past 30 years. Does that mean you are telling the electorate that it would go up pretty steadily under another five years of Tory rule?
Mr Hurd
No, I believe it would turn round, because I believe we have the resources and the policies to get it right. I go to some places where I see it turning round. Now how long that will take to reflect in the national figures, I am certainly not going to prophesy because all kinds of factors go into the rise in the crime figures and a large number of them are not under direct Government control. So I am certainly not giving any prophecy about dates. But as I go to place like, for example, the Roehampton Estate in David Mellor 's constituency in Putney and see the change which is taking place in what used to be a bleak crime-ridden place, then I am confident that if we can get all these factors working together, it will turn round.
Q
Home Secretary, you said that the Labour Party's brave words on crime can be expected at midnight on June 11th to turn into a pumpkin, and out of that pumpkin will crawl one very large maggot. Why are you conceding already?
Mr Hurd
It will turn into a pumpkin anyway whether they win or lose. The maggot is there. The maggot is not dependent on the result. The maggot is the result of the nature of the official policies of the Labour Party whether they win or lose. The pretence will then be over. [end p4]
Q
We have record unemployment. We have record crime. We have poor education. We have poor housing and inner city riots. Are you not ever so slightly ashamed of your record on the inner cities?
Mr Hurd
I believe—others may want to come in on this—that the dimness, drabness deprivation of some parts of some of our cities can and is being tackled by a whole range of measures. I do not believe that you do this simply by pouring new money into old failed policies. Bringing round the inner cities is quite a different matter than simply stepping up the rate support grant. There is a whole range of programmes of which Nicholas Ridley, Kenneth Clarke and others in charge, as well as ours on the crime prevention front, which are now working together in some of these areas to produce results, and we have increased the number of areas in which they are so operating. So the answer to your question is no.
Prime Minister
Would Kenneth Clarke like to come in because you do a lot of work on the co-ordination?
Mr Clarke
Yes. I think we are tackling the inner cities more directly than ever before. Instead of leaving it to local agencies to which we just give them money, we have now got little teams on the ground actually tackling the problems with the people there. We get best value for money out of all Nick's programmes with the urban programme, estate action and so on. We have got the Manpower Services Commission actually concentrating all its best training and work experience programmes increasingly in the inner cities. Then we actually do things like training people for the work in the new buildings being built with Nick's grants—training inner city residents for work in the new hotels, training residents for work in the new shops, when we are rebuilding houses, putting training projects alongside the rebuilding, so that actually people are trained for construction jobs and can work outside the inner cities. It will take a long time, but this Government is now more directly engaged in helping inner city people than any Government has been before. [end p5] We have people on the ground working with the local people, working with local business and building a partnership with co-operative people wherever we can find them. I think that will begin to turn round our worse inner city areas.
The snag sometimes comes when the local authorities—who are almost invariably Labour-controlled—resist this and try to deter us. In Southwark and in Leicester, we encounter councils that do not want to know who actually tell us that they are hostile to MSC proposals for work experience or training for residents in estates which they own. We ignore them if we have to, but we get round them and work with people of good will amongst the inner city residents themselves in the local business community to try to prepare projects that give people some hope in those areas. It is a combination of things. A combination of rebuilding and greening the inner cities. A combination of the work experience, the training, the job opportunities that we can give and the policing of the inner cities that will turn these things round. But they will all go together and actually preventing crime and effective policing is one of the things that has to go alongside increasing the job opportunities and improving the physical appearance of the inner cities. In some places you can now see that happening very clearly on the ground.
Q
Do you accept, therefore, that there is a link between deprivation and crime and, specifically, between unemployment and crime?
Mr Hurd
There is no general link between unemployment and crime. If there were a general link between unemployment and crime, we would have had much more crime, for example, in the twenties and thirties when unemployment was in practical effect very much more serious than it is now. So I do not think there can be. There is no research or evidence which shows that there is a general link. There are in some of the inner cities that we are talking about a sort of cloud of discouragement over those places to which many things contribute. Job difficulties, housing difficulties and things that you are talking about contribute to that cloud. What we have to do is to lift that cloud through the kind of measures, including crime prevention, intelligent strong policing— [end p6] the kind of measures which Ken Clarke has just been talking about.
Q
Mrs Thatcher, in 1983 your Party set itself out as the party of law and order. Do you think that the people in London are now justified in thinking that perhaps that is not your motto, but perhaps the motto of a different party?
Mr Hurd
If you go out and ask people in London, you would not get that answer. Of course, people are concerned, anxious and angry about rising crime. It is quite naturally so. It certainly comes under the heading of “unfinished business” . But they are also realistic about the causes of crime. No one in their senses would contemplate voting for any of the Opposition parties on this issue when they consider, for example, the state in which we found the police force in this country when it was bequeathed to us by the Government in which David Owen, Shirley Williams and Gerald Kaufman sat and the low priority which they gave, particularly, to the policing of London. So certainly the anxiety is there, the concern is there which is why we have to intensify the priority which we have given to this subject. But I do not believe that concern and anxiety translates itself at all into what the latter part of your question was—supposing that any other party should be supported on this issue.
Q
You are singing a very fair tune on inner cities now, but do not you think the electorate might be entitled to feel a little bit sceptical about the neglect of inner cities in the early years of this Government and, in particular, the way in which the rate support grant was distributed away from the cities, which has now been remedied but rather late in the day? Are not we really seeing what is happening in the cities—several years of neglect under a Conservative Government?
Mr Ridley
Our spending on the urban programmes, of which there are many—I shall put up a chart—shows that expenditure has gone up from £114 million in 1978–79 to [end p7] £531 million in 1987–88. That is cash, but it is a very large real terms increase. Secondly, it shows that that spending took place very rapidly at the beginning of our eight years, not as you are suggesting as a sort of last minute thought.
On rate support grant, there is, in fact, a very large bias in the formula which distributes the rate support grant to the inner cities and less prosperous areas of the country. About £1 billion more goes to the northern industrial cities and the urban areas than goes to the south of England. In the last rate support grant settlement, which was a very generous one, twice as much more of that went to the north as goes to the south. There always has been this major bias in spending in favour of the inner city areas—the industrial areas. This is absolutely vital because it is part of the way in which we will get employment back into those areas. Without improving those environments, you will not see people go and settle and provide jobs there.
Q
When the Home Secretary talked about political interference with the police linked Manchester with Greater London. Why mention Manchester in particular?
Mr Hurd
Because of the nature of the Manchester City Council, and because of the Manchester ratepayers' money which goes on a disgraceful publication called “Police Watch” , which I receive from time to time. It is very glossy, very anti-police and undermines what the police are trying to do to protect the citizen of Manchester. I must say that it did cross my mind that the official spokesman on these matters for the Labour Party was one of the Members of Parliament for that city.
Q
What is the Home Secretary's official view about what would be the consequences of political policing, which the Labour Party plans to introduce, on industrial disputes? In particular, I have in mind the miners' strike and the print dispute at Wapping. Would that mean that, in both cases, the mob would have won? [end p8]
Mr Hurd
Let us take that very soberly. The Labour pledge is that they would amend the law so as to give locally-elected police authorities in all areas, including London, the responsibility for determining, not just having a say in, the policies, priorities and methods of their forces.
Let us take the Wapping dispute. You would have had then the locally-elected Labour authority in which, no doubt, people like Mr Grant would have held a prominent place. The Metropolitan Commissioner of Police would have had to go to them in order that they could determine the policies, priorities and methods. I should have thought it very likely in that particular case that in determining the policies, priorities and methods, that authority would have said that they did not want any police out. What the consequences of that would have been for the newspaper industry or for the freedom of people to work in this country, I leave it to you to imagine.
Q
The Opposition parties are both talking of offering greater protection against crime at the most basic level by giving grants for things like entry phones, security locks and so on. Are you intending to enter into this auction at all? If not, why not?
Mr Hurd
We are acting. We are not auctioning, we are acting. I added a sentence or two to the press handout to deal with this point. If you go to Hammersmith, Fulham or Wandsworth, you will see that Conservative councils initiated lock-fitting programmes, particularly for the elderly but going more widely. They got the money for that from the urban programme. If you go to Merthyr Tydfil, you will find that they are financed by the Community Programme. Unemployed people are actually going round the streets improving the security of the homes of people. So there are schemes and resources in action now to help with crime prevention in a very practical way. We favour those schemes and encourage them.
Q
Council houses in inner cities are often a problem. I wish to ask you about the Manifesto promises on council tenants. If a tenant wants to transfer tenancy from a council to an independent landlord, does the landlord become the owner of the property? Does he have to pay the council [end p9] the capital value of the house and what happens if, and when, the tenancy ceases?
Mr Ridley
Yes. Money will change hands if either a tenant or a group of tenants in a block of flats unanimously decide to transfer to another landlord. There are many possibilities there—a housing association, a tenant co-operative or a private landlord operating under the new short-hold or the assured tenancy systems we are bringing in. If that happens, money will change hands and it will be the market value of the house, or the block of flats, subject to the council tenancy. So it is really the income stream which is being bought. The council will be left with the debt. In some cases that debt will be greater than the income stream capitalised. In some cases it will be less. Under those circumstances, the tenancy remains. The legal position of the council tenant will not be affected by the transfer. He will have to agree the rent with his new landlord, and he can agree a higher one if improvements were taking place, the same one or whatever he is prepared to agree to. It will be a bargain between the two. Of course, housing benefit will still apply, so there is no changes there.
The council rules for the tenancy will remain until there is a vacancy. Supposing somebody dies or moves away and there is a vacancy in one of those houses or flats, the new landlord would, of course, be free to let it on whatever terms he thinks most appropriate.
Q
Or sell it.
Mr Ridley
Or sell it if he wishes. He might sell it to the tenant, too.
Prime Minister
There is one point that we ought to make clear. If you are transferring the ownership of a council property, it has to be to an approved landlord. It cannot just be to any landlord. It may be a housing association, a building society or another kind of private sector landlord, but that landlord would have to be approved by the Secretary of State. [end p10]
Mr Ridley
We already have an approval list and, no doubt, many others would want to be on that approval list, but we will make sure that it is reputable people to whom transfers take place.
Prime Minister
… some other misunderstanding. It is not by majority in a block of flats. It is by individual decision. It is quite possible in a block of flats to have someone who holds the entire freehold of it, and then to have separate, different sub-leases. But it is only by the individual tenant. No one who wishes to stay precisely as they are—under the control—will have to transfer in any way. The council continues to hold the right to the tenancy of that flat. It is an individual——
Mr Ridley
Supposing one person in a block of flats refuses the transfer and all the rest want it. The new landlord will sub-let that flat back to the council, which will be responsible for paying its share of the service charge and, at the same time, enter into or continue the tenancy with the existing council tenant. So from that tenant's point of view, there will be no difference whatever to his circumstances.
Prime Minister
It is an extra choice possible to council tenants if they wish individually to exercise it.
Q
If a tenant is dissatisfied with the level of services and if half the block is owned by the council and the other by a different landlord, who is responsible?
Mr Ridley
All blocks of flats in which different people own, or have long leases for, different flats are governed by a legal document setting out the rules of how much you have to pay for services charges, porterage or a lift. We, in flats, all have to have these legal agreements and, of course, we have to pay our service charges legally. It is a legally enforcible contract. The same can easily apply. Whether it is a private landlord with a whole number of leaseholds or whether one of those leaseholders happens to be the council, it does not make any difference. [end p11] The council can have its own transaction with its tenant, who happens to be the one left behind because he wishes to remain a council tenant. There is nothing new about this; it is very standard.
Q
I wish to ask a question about the emergency community alarms that affect the elderly and fighting crime. Given, say, the priority that the elderly should be protected from burglaries, could I have an explanation why Mr John Major, the Social Security Minister put regulations on the last day of Parliament in the House of Commons Library restricting housing benefit support for the poorest people to pay for these rentals? It seems a rather petty measure and could worry people a lot.
Prime Minister
How very convenient. We have John Major here.
Mr Major
There are a wide variety of changes in a whole series of housing benefit regulations. I think that it is a rather curious proposition that David has put forward to suggest that there is a direct restriction of the sort that he suggests. What we have sought to do with the housing benefit regulations is to change them to take account of a wholly-new housing benefit system, but it does not admit deliberately as an act of policy precisely the restriction that David Hencke actually has in mind. We certainly propose not to admit that particular restriction, and I am surprised that he should have raised it in precisely the fashion that he did.
Mr Brunson
I am a little confused about the procedure for the taking over of council estates. As I understood it, they are before the entire estate and, obviously, there are responsibilities, are there not, for running an entire estate—the surroundings and so on, for the total fabric of the estate? My understanding was in the Manifesto was that there would have to be majority of people within the estate who would agree this. Is that right? You seemed to say that it would not necessarily be a majority, Prime Minister. [end p12]
Prime Minister
No. I am sorry, but you have not got it at all. Therefore, we must explain it. First, estates are already under varied ownership because 1 million people decided to purchase their properties from the council. So you already have substantially varied ownership. Many of the problems that you are raising have already been tackled and dealt with as people individually have exercised their rights to buy at substantial discount. So we are already familiar with the idea of multiple ownership of houses or flats on a particular estate. We have got the experience of coping with that. We are going to have a whole meeting on housing. Nick has said that, individually now, people who are tenants of local authorities are not going to be restricted to purchasing from their local authorities. They may, if they wish, choose to be a tenant of a different landlord, so that they stay exactly where they are, but their tenancy is transferred from the local authority to, say, a housing association or other approved landlords. It cannot just be to anyone; it has to be to an approved landlord. That is an individual decision. It is not the majority in the block. That would be wrong, because what we are after is not to compel people who wish to stay as council tenants to change, but if people wish to be tenants of a housing association, we would to give them an option to do so.
Mr Tebbit
I think that Mr Brunson is unclear about the procedure in the event that a large group of the tenants of what we would call an estate—we all know the sort of blocks that he has in mind—conclude that they were not satisfied with the service being offered to them by their landlord—the council. Under those circumstances, the options which, I think, Mr Brunson has in mind are that they could either decide to form a co-operative and ask to manage the property themselves or, alternatively, they could get together and decide by a majority vote to ask another landlord—perhaps a building society—to take the property over. Under those circumstances, the protection for the individuals who did not wish to go to the new landlord are those which you outlined a few moments ago to Mr Dimbleby. They would, in effect, be able to maintain [end p13] the council as their landlord, who would be operating under a sub-lease and, therefore, representing——
Side 2 beginsMr Brunson
… surely a decision on who was going to run common services like lifts, heatings or gardens would have to be by majority vote, would it not?
Mr Ridley
I think that we have two separate cases. One, when it is a house and, of course, when it is a question of each individual deciding to buy his own house or opt for another landlord and then arrangements could be made for the communal upkeep of the environment. But the more difficult case is when it is a block of flats or maisonettes—where it is a common structure. Then there has to be, as it were, the overall landlord. If it were the council and the majority vote for it to be a co-operative or a housing association, then arrangements are there for each individual tenant who does not want to opt to be left with his council. It is easy if you see it in terms of two totally different situations. You can transfer individual cases much more easily than individual flats.
Q
Would a tenant who is giving up the right to buy receive money from the building society which took over his flat?
Mr Ridley
No. He would have exactly the same tenancy, but he would have a different landlord. He might still have the right to buy … . If it were a housing association, he would. If it were a charitable housing association, he would not. He could, of course, at the time of transfer negotiate with his new landlord whether the right to buy persisted. But under law, the only people who can be forced [end p14] to give the right to buy are non-charitable housing associations.
Q
But money could change hands if he gave up the right?
Mr Ridley
This is a private agreement between the tenants and the landlord. They can agree on anything they like. We do not want to restrict them, but the tenants have the rights——
Q
Landlords pay tenants to buy the properties, do they not? If you go along to a tenant and say, “I would like to buy this property from the council. Why do not you tell the council I want to buy it. Here is £2000” .
Mr Tebbit
I think that it is an unlikely proposition that the Abbey National or a housing association would indulge in that. The questioner has in mind some rather odd forms of landlords, but they would be unlikely to be the landlords who would be approved.
Q
What will disqualify a landlord from your approved list?
Mr Ridley
This approved list already exists in relation to assured tenancies. It is people of financial standing and good repute who have a track record of being a good landlord who are on that list. Obviously, there are some people who are not on that list and we can all imagine why.
Q
What is the sort of rejection rate?
Mr Ridley
Very low at the moment, because it is a very small list. There has not been a major take-up of assured tenancies, so we do not have many people applying. I think that there is about 100 people on the list and there are several hundred assured tenancies in existence. We are going to develop assured tenancies and make them much more important, but the list exists and the principles of selection— [end p15]
Prime Minister
I am sorry; it is getting a little bit out of hand. Three more questions because we are already past 10 o'clock.
Mr Moncrieff
Are we on to general topics now?
Prime Minister
Well, no. I do not think that we are going to get on to general topics because there seemed to have been already a great deal. All right—if you wish——
Mr Moncrieff
When does the Prime Minister envisage discussing at this General Election the question of defending Britain by guerilla bands. Does this, in her view, add a new dimension to Labour's defence policy?
Prime Minister
Doubtless we will have another session on defence policy—real defence policy, the defence of Britain.
Q
I wonder whether the Prime Minister agreed with Mr Kinnock 's view of the press as more irresponsible, prone to slaunder and filthy than we have had before in this country?
Mr Tebbit
I think that we should ask the Press Conference that question, Prime Minister.
Prime Minister
The fact is that you cannot really have a free society without a free press. Doubtless the press has various opinions of politicians. It is not, therefore, surprising that various politicians have different opinions of the press. That is what a free society is all about. Now, was not that a diplomatic reply?
Q
You keep telling us about Labour's hidden agenda. Is it part of your hidden agenda to sack Peter Walker and John Biffen when the Election is over?
Prime Minister
We have set out the longest Manifesto in more detail than anyone has ever done before. You are deliberately using the question to get a question which does not arise from the question which you put. [end p16]
Mr Ridley
Last Thursday night on television, Jack Cunningham said that the Labour Party had a plan for a major reform of the rates. I asked him what it was. He said, “I'm keeping that secret. I'm not releasing that now” . This is a very sinister part of the hidden Manifesto of the Labour Party, because a major reform of rates must mean that they are going to capital value rates. They are keeping very quiet about whether we are going to have capital value rating which, of course, would be devastating to people living in London and the south of England, and those living in properties whose price is going up because there is a shortage of housing. They are not actually telling us whether this is their plan, but I suspect that it is.
It seems to me that, when we have gone to the trouble of publishing the community charge for each local authority and constituency in the country and have been absolutely frank about our plans and they are keeping to themselves this hidden bombshell of capital value rating, they should be forced to tell the public of what they have in mind.
Prime Minister
Thank you very much, and thank you very much for the confidence of the questioner in asserting positively that we shall be returned. Could he tell us the majority?
Q
To go back to the question of the inner cities, is the Home Secretary happy that, as a result of the measures that he has brought in over the past few years dealing with crime and such in the inner cities, there will be no riots this summer?
Mr Hurd
How can I possibly guarantee that? I believe that as a result, in part, of the measures that we have taken—not just Home Office measures; not just increasing the police force, but the measures of Kenneth Clarke and Nick Ridley—there are signs of improvement. The atmosphere is improving in some of the most difficult places. There is enough feel of improvement in some of those places to encourage us to believe that we are on the right track. I do not wish to go further than that, but that is a realistic statement. [end p17]
Q
Do approved landlords stay approved in perpetuity? If not, in what circumstances would they be removed from the list and what would happen to the properties under their responsibility?
Mr Ridley
People will go on to the list and off the list. They are not there for life. If they transgress, they will go off it. If they improve, they can go on it. It has to be a fairly subjective list according to the established criteria for putting people on—their financial soundness and good repute. We will, without any difficulty, take people off the list if it is necessary. Houses which are then owned by such people have to be, in some way, transferred because they would not then be approved to continue owning those houses.