SITE LINKS
15th July 2008
Earlier this week I raised the question of crime detection rates with the Home Secretary in the House of Commons.
I was prompted to do so by the seeming increase in knife crime which has taken place recently. I obtained the detection rates in a written question and used the Home Office’s figures to question the Home Secretary.
The overall detection rate of all crimes is just 27%. This means that almost three-quarters of crimes are undetected and the criminals are not called to account for their actions.
For violent crimes, the detection rate is 51%. Again, this obviously means that almost half the violent crimes committed against people go undetected and the perpetrator unpunished.
For theft offences, the detection rate is a mere 18% and for burglary the rate is a dismal 14%. So, again, turning the figures the other way round, over four-fifths of thefts go undetected and 86% of burglars get away with their crime and the victims’ goods.
Crime, and the fear of crime, is blighting people’s lives, just as the extensive security checks which we all have to endure most days of our lives is adding to the stress of modern living. It is therefore essential to increase detection rates, as well as to introduce stiffer and more appropriate sentences, if we are to live in a safer society.
The Home secretary referred to DNA testing and data banks and CCTV in her reply to me. This is where we cross into the civil liberties argument. There are those who say that our privacy is precious and should be protected. But many of us would see that the use of DNA and CCTV would actually free our lives up rather than curtail our freedoms, in that it could reduce crime and the fear of crime and would reduce the need for such excessive security measures to be taken.
If people considering committing crimes knew that for almost certain that they would be caught then they would be far less likely to commit those crimes. This is where the question of DNA and CCTV comes into play. But regardless of people’s views on the use of these technologies, there can be little argument that an overall detection rate of 27% of crimes is unacceptable.
And there can be little argument over the fact that the police are being forced to spend too much of their time filling in forms and meeting government targets, which involves chasing many motorists. I don’t blame the police - I blame the government for this. And it is something I shall be pursuing
.
________________________________________________________
VIEW FROM WESTMINSTER
8th July 2008 2008
The Secretary of State’s decision to allow the appeal by Hitchens to build about 600 houses between Longford and Innsworth came as a big disappointment to many of us.
Along with many local people, I had worked hard in opposition to the proposals to build these houses. I submitted photographs showing the area flooded and submitted a formal objection on these grounds but also on traffic grounds.
Houses in the locality flooded last year and people were displaced for months. Also, as everyone knows, the nearby Walham sub-station almost went under - if it had have done the County would have probably been evacuated. So serious was the problem and so large was the threat. I can still feel the chill I felt when the water continued to rise at that site.
To allow the green fields in the area to be concreted over is, as I said at the time, in my view, unbelievably stupid. It isn’t only a matter of whether the houses on the new site will flood – they probably will – but also the fact that building on green fields, which would otherwise soak water up, will cause other places to flood. Such places will include local houses and the sub-station.
Only last week in the House of Commons I raised the matter with the Secretary of State and she assured me that she would take these matters into consideration when making these kind of decisions. Sadly, it seems that she didn’t do so which some might say warrants the charge of misleading the House.
Her decision comes on the back of the report into the flooding by Sir Michael Pitt, which was rather weak with regards to building in flood risk areas. And in the near future the Secretary of State will take decisions on the Regional Spatial Strategy, which proposes building many more houses in this area, as well as other vulnerable parts of the County.
Sadly, it all ties in together. People could be forgiven for thinking that the whole process is developer-led, with the views of local people counting for nothing. I’m afraid that seems to be the case. Unfortunately, unless there is a point of law which can be challenged in the High Court, there is little we can do on this occasion now.
I’m afraid all our fears were well founded. And my views of the Environment Agency were confirmed by their withdrawal of their objection to the plans. I have long held that the Environment Agency is an organisation which is not up to the job we require it to do. Unfortunately, its performance over this application demonstrates that more than adequately.
____________________________________________________
MP CALLS FOR INCREASE IN DETECTION RATES
T
ewkesbury MP Laurence Robertson raised the issue of detection rates with the Home Secretary in the House of Commons today.Mr Robertson, who had earlier met a large group of pupils from Churchdown School, said that he had discussed this matter with them and they had been shocked by the low level of detection rates of violent crimes.
"The detection rate for violence against the person is just 51%" said Mr Robertson. "This sends a clear message to potential criminals that if you attack someone then you have a good chance of getting away with it.
"Detection rates for other crimes are even worse. For example, for theft offences it is just 18% and for burglary it is only 14%.
"The overall detection rate for crimes is just 27%, meaning that almost three-quarters of criminals are getting away with their crimes. In these days of high technology, such low figures are unacceptable.
Mr Robertson asked what could be done about this problem and what the government was doing. The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, agreed that the rates needed increasing and said that CCTV and DNA could play their part in increasing the detection rates.
"It wasn’t really a convincing answer" said Mr Robertson. "Certainly CCTV and DNA have their parts to play, but the government is doing little to extend their use. The government is also requiring police officers to spend far too much of their time filling in forms and chasing motorists.
"The emphasis needs to change and I intend to continue to press for greater action. Crime is far too prevalent and far too many people are living in fear of crime.
Date of Release: 14th July 2008 Time of Release: 4.00pm
________________________________________
Laurence's Debate on the Regional Spacial Strategy
and it's affect on flooding in the Tewkesbury constituency
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I am pleased to have secured this debate. I am very grateful to the Minister for staying behind to reply, particularly as we did not know what time it would be when we got to this stage.
The subject of this debate—the implications for Tewkesbury of the south west regional spatial strategy—is especially important. Not only do we have green belt, green fields and beautiful areas in my constituency that we wish to protect, but, as the world knows, we have a problem with flooding. I say "as the world knows" because it is true. On recent trips to three countries in the far east and four countries in the Caribbean, my constituency of Tewkesbury was known about for the wrong reason—the terrible floods of July 2007. It is worth remembering that as a result of those floods, three people lost their lives and thousands had their homes and businesses flooded. Hundreds of thousands lost mains water supplies—some for up to three weeks—and power supplies were affected. The effects of the July 2007 floods remain with us. Even now, almost 10 months on, approximately 385 households in my constituency are still displaced from their homes, and some are probably still months from returning to them. Business in certain parts of my constituency remains depressed.
have held two Adjournment debates on flooding and on each occasion—and on many other occasions—I have said the following. People in my constituency accept that living at the confluence of two rivers means that the area will flood every so often. Fields in the area flood a number of times each year. Although we all accept that the rainfall of 20 July 2007 was exceptional, we believe that certain factors made the flooding worse than it needed to be. One factor was the poor maintenance of the culverts, sewers, drains, ditches and waterways, but the other factor was that too many houses have been built in flood risk areas. People accept that the area will flood, but the one overriding message that people give to me, which they want me to pass on to the Minister, is that we should not be making the situation any worse than it needs to be. We should mitigate, rather than escalate, the problem. Imagine, then, the disappointment and anger at the contents of the regional spatial strategy, which proposes the building of thousands of houses in my constituency, in areas that have to be classed as at risk of flooding.
Before I go any further, let me state what should be the obvious. This is not just a matter of whether the new houses flood. Houses built in the wrong place take up field space that would otherwise have soaked up water, thereby preventing that water from resting on those fields. Water will be sent into other areas, causing terrible flooding. In other words, the run-off of water from one development causes other developments to flood. That fact should be obvious, but certain people just focus on whether the new houses flood. That is missing the point, either deliberately or otherwise. Those people also state that houses built in those areas should be flood-resilient. Again, that is missing the point, because the presence of these houses causes other houses to flood. It is my submission, therefore, that to build thousands of houses in or around my constituency would be madness. What further evidence, other than three deaths, people still being out of their homes and business still being flat 10 months on, do those taking the decisions need to persuade them to build houses elsewhere?
In the RSS, the required number of houses for the whole housing market area is about 56,400, with 23 per cent. of these—a total of 13,100—proposed for the Tewkesbury district. If we want to talk about constituency boundaries, 27.7 per cent.—15,600 houses—would be within my constituency, much of which is a flood risk area. If we analyse those figures, we see that the RSS proposes the building of many houses at Longford and Innsworth, close to the Walham power station, which, as everyone knows, almost went under during the 2007 floods. If the water had risen much higher at that power station, hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their mains power supply, and that was almost the case. If that area is not at risk of flooding, what is? How can it make sense to propose to build houses in such an area?
Houses also flooded in Bishop’s Cleeve, but the RSS proposes the building of thousands of houses close to that village. Uckington floods, and flood alleviation schemes are being built to contain the River Chelt in that area. Yet again, thousands of houses are being proposed for that area, and 2,900 houses are proposed for the rest of the Tewkesbury district. From conversations that I have held with planners, it appears that those houses might have to be built close to Tewkesbury town, which was badly affected only last year, and remains so. No one can forget the television images of the town surrounded by water.
The evidence of the problems of excessive building is already there for all to see. For example, in Bredon road in Tewkesbury, houses in the process of being built flooded, and houses that were built in Noverton lane worsened the flooding in the village of Prestbury, where in June—never mind July—houses flooded for the first time in people’s 40-year memories. They flooded again in July of course, and the streets became like rivers. Who can say that those extra houses did not worsen matters?
The Government often say that they have strengthened the case against building in flood risk areas through planning policy statement 25. However, a glance at that document, which was published in December 2006—months before the terrible floods in 2007—shows that the guidance on building outside flood risk areas is qualified by "wider sustainability objectives". The "exceptional test" allows building in flood risk areas.
So what is the principle that underpins PPS25? Is it avoiding inappropriate development in flood risk areas or ensuring that housing targets are met? In other words, the exceptional test undermines the principle of the whole document and disregards the dangers and major disruptions experienced by people who live in flood risk areas.
As Sir Michael Pitt says in his interim report:
"Some respondents felt that the introduction of this test could be interpreted as a get-out clause for local authorities"—
or, in this case, the RSS. Crucially, he continues:
"A decision to permit development should not be taken lightly by the
planning authority, not least because a prospective purchaser will
generally assume that the granting of planning permission signals that
the local authority does not perceive there to be a problem with flood
risk".
That is a good point. Who will buy those houses if they are perceived to be likely to flood, and if there are problems with insuring them? Earlier today, the Association of British Insurers told me:
"We want to ensure that wherever possible new homes are not built in high flood risk areas. If they are, then insurers cannot guarantee to offer cover."
Planning policy statement 25 calls for flood risk assessments to be made at all levels of the planning process. However, what flood risk assessments were made during the compilation of the RSS, a document that was largely drawn up before the floods of July 2007? Does not that in itself make it incumbent on the Secretary of State to require the authors to go back to the drawing board on their housing proposals?
What constitutes a flood risk area? If the definition is based on annual likelihood of flooding, how can that be assessed if we accept that climate change is taking place? In other words, a place with a one in a 100 chance of flooding in the past can no longer be assumed to be in that category if the climate is changing as the Government tell us it is.
We are, of course, supposed to be protected from inappropriate development by the Environment Agency. However, an appeal to build 600 houses near Longford in my constituency, close to Walham sub-station, is currently being considered by the Secretary of State. I have submitted photographs of at least part of that site when flooded, yet the Environment Agency did not even submit an objection to the application. Even worse, the Environment Agency said that the area did not have a monitoring station on the site, but it does. That station indicated flooding, so I hope that the Secretary of State will take that error into account when assessing the appeal.
I suggest that the fact that the Environment Agency has not objected to the proposed building at Longford is evidence that, as currently constituted, it is simply not up to the job and its role should be reviewed. How can the Environment Agency, when it has seen the effects of the flooding in my area, fail to object to the proposals to build thousands more houses there? It defies belief. Of course, some might describe my objection to those houses as an example of nimbyism—but if it is, so be it. I am paid to represent the people of my constituency, and I do not believe it to be in their best interests to have those houses.
Let us consider the situation somewhat more widely. Village post offices are closing, including a further six in my constituency, pubs are closing at the rate of an estimated 27 a week, and village shops are struggling. So why not top up the housing stock in villages throughout the country? Many villages are calling for such development, partly so that their own people can continue to live in the villages where they were born.
Why is the
concentration on principal urban areas? Why are so many houses needed in
the first place? What is the science used to calculate the need for such
housing stock? It cannot be that the divorce rate and the life
expectancy figures are still accelerating to such a degree. However, I
accept that the net immigration
figures are a worry, with a total of 1.62 million more people coming to
this country than leaving it over the past 10 years, which puts pressure
on housing. That perhaps needs tackling as a separate problem. The
method of calculation, immigration, the dispersal of houses and the
planning process are all underlying issues that the Government should
tackle, rather than allowing unelected regional bureaucrats to make
crude calculations about the number of houses that we are supposed to
need in each constituency.
The Government have made two promises that are relevant to this debate. One, which they made before being elected to office, was to end the predict-and-provide approach to housing. That has not happened; in fact that approach has been entrenched, and on a regional basis, which is why we are in the current predicament. The second promise, made after last week’s election results, was that the Prime Minister would listen to people’s concerns.
The Prime Minister paid a welcome visit to my constituency during the flooding. I now call on him, the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to what the people of Tewkesbury are saying: that building extra housing to the level proposed by the RSS would make the risk of flooding in the area significantly worse, with the risk to life, property, business and possessions being greatly heightened.
When he visited Tewkesbury, the Prime Minister saw for himself the water, the bowsers, the problems at Walham and the Mythe, and the enormous efforts that people were making to help each other. I know that he would not want us to go through that again. So through his Secretary of State and the Minister who is here tonight, the Prime Minister needs to reject the proposals in the RSS to which I have referred, in order to reduce that likelihood. To refuse to do so will be to fail to respond to the situation in which we found ourselves last year, and will also represent a failure to listen. As only the changes that the Minister makes to the RSS will be open to further public consultation, this is our last chance to affect the outcome of what, to us, is a crucial process.
__________________________________________________
