A round-up of some opening political shots on law and order before a presumed May 2005 general election
Tory leader Michael Howard has unveiled plans to scrap "remote and unaccountable" police authorities and replace them with directly elected local police commissioners across England and Wales.
The Conservative Leader announced the latest plank in the party’s law and order policy portfolio during a visit to Manchester, where he was hosting the first weekly meeting of the Shadow Cabinet outside London.
Insisting that elected commissioners would improve accountability and give the public a more direct say in the running of their local police forces, Mr Howard said the new scheme would allow people to be able to influence the type of policing and police priorities in their local area, and to hold Chief Constables to account.
He said: "The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have. They are not providing the local accountability that we want to see – that’s why we want a police commissioner, a visible, elected person to take over the responsibilities of the police authorities."
Mr Howard made it clear that Police Commissioners would assume the role and functions exercised by Police Authorities: principally to produce in consultation with the Chief Constable, an annual and a three year strategy; to approve an annual budget and precept on council tax payers; to appoint the Chief Constable and his deputies; and to consult with local communities regarding the policing of these areas and monitor effectiveness.
Under the reforms, Police Commissioners would be created in 42 of the 43 police force areas, while in London the Metropolitan Police Force would be accountable to the elected Mayor of London, who would assume the responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The appointment of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would continue to remain the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
Speaking in Manchester, Mr Howard said: "In one sense, the police today are more formally accountable than they have ever been. The trouble is they are accountable to the wrong people: quangos and bureaucrats – not to local communities. The public is becoming divided from the police by a wall of bureaucracy and political correctness. That is why we are putting forward a simple, straightforward policy that will reverse this tide: a policy that will help capture a new spirit of optimism in our cities and towns."
Mr Howard claimed that a contest for the post of police commissioner would have a "galvanising effect". "I can already hear the cries of horror from the criminal justice establishment: ‘You can’t give ordinary people a say over law and order. What a terrible idea’."
He said: "Police commissioners will reflect the concerns of the people who elect them. They will be able to put police muscle power behind the public’s priorities – tackling crime and disorder: vandalism, rowdiness, thuggery. Those are their priorities – not more and more speed cameras to fill Treasury coffers. The rights of the community need to be centre stage. And the way to do that is to make those rights central to the democratic mandate of an elected police commissioner. That will restore confidence. It will give police officers the confidence to come down hard on every kind of crime and disorder. And it will restore confidence in the police."
You can download the crime chapter of the manifesto as a PDF:
For Labour, Alan Milburn pointed to the Tories failing to support ID cards legislation: "Our ID cards Bill will offer greater security not least by helping combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and abuse of our public services. That is why we were pleased when Michael Howard announced he was supporting the measure, and that is why we think he has made a major strategic error of judgment in now withdrawing. When faced with either supporting or opposing a practical measure to make our country safer and more secure Mr Howard has chosen to face both ways. It takes more than tough talk to make Britain secure. It takes practical measures. The Conservatives have failed that test.”
And meanwhile, Norman Baker, MP for Lewes and Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, is proposing legislation that would end the environmental nuisance of car alarms as well as helping tackle car crime more effectively, he claims.
His Private Member’s Bill will require audible car alarms to sound for no more than 90 seconds, and, in the case of new cars, to sound at no more than 55 decibels – equivalent to background traffic noise – from 2007. It also encourages manufacturers to provide alternatives that are more effective in preventing theft, and which do not cause noise nuisance, such as immobilisers and tracking devices. Most cars are fitted with audible car alarms as a security feature to guard against car thieves, but their effectiveness has become increasingly questionable, it is claimed.
What they say
Mr Baker said: "Car alarms have become an environmental and urban nuisance. I have received letters from people up and down the country complaining about sleepless nights resulting from persistent car alarms going off for no apparent reason. Usually, when a car alarm goes off people assume it is a false alarm. No one bothers to investigate, the police do not attend, and all the alarms do is annoy neighbours. Car alarms don’t appear to fulfil any useful function whatsoever. This Bill will give a much needed break to sleep-deprived and irritated neighbours. It will mean an end to the non-stop wailing of alarms by putting a 90 second limit on all new alarms and will reduce the level of noise. It is high time this out-of-date technology was replaced with far more effective immobilisers and tracking devices."
