---

Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton): I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the excellent scheme that the Labour-controlled council has introduced in his constituency. How much Government money was allocated to CCTV?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To be fair, I said that East Staffordshire borough council was Labour controlled, but one does not want to go overboard praising that council. After all, it supports the Labour party, whose slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" has been shown to be a hollow load of hypocritical twaddle. Labour may be tough on the victims, but it certainly is not tough on crime.

30 Jan 1996 : Column 897

I asked the chief constable to tell me why he believes that he has achieved such a substantial fall in crime in Staffordshire.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I must proceed--otherhon. Members want to speak in this very short debate.

The chief constable said that the law and order situation in Staffordshire had improved for three reasons. First, he referred to the impact of legislation. He said:

"I particularly have in mind the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".

Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I adopt a completely sexless approach to dealing with interventions.

The chief constable continued:

"The numerous changes in evidential and procedural matters either already have had, or will have, a significant impact on evidence gathering and the more effective prosecution of offenders. The alteration of the law relating to bail was particularly welcome as a means of preventing persistent offenders from continuing to commit crime whilst awaiting trial".

The Labour party opposed many--although not all--of those measures. The Labour-controlled East Staffordshire borough council is undoubtedly a strong supporter of Opposition law and order policies, and it must have felt that the Government were being both ungenerous and unhelpful in stimulating the police to the kind of achievements that they have realised in Staffordshire.

The chief constable's second point concerned

"The impact of crime prevention measures"

on the reduction of crime in Staffordshire. He wrote:

"It seems clear that recent crime prevention measures, both at central and local level, have played a significant part in the reduction in levels of crime--particularly in the areas of house burglary and car crime.".

He also mentioned CCTV.

Thirdly, the chief constable dealt with

"The impact of improved tactics by the police".

The Government have gone out of their way to encourage the police to look at the way in which they practise policing and to take best practice from those forces that have been most successful in activities such as targeting known offenders.

The success in Staffordshire has been outstanding. The chief constable concluded:

"Looking to the future, there is strong support for proposals, such as the imposition of limitations on disclosure to the defence, which it is understood are under consideration . . . In addition, there is strong support for proposals to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses within the criminal justice system . . . In the round, I think that many positive steps have been taken in recent times to tackle the problem of crime."

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth(Mr. Michael) said that it is a pity that we cannot all work together to reduce crime. Here is his invitation.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No.

30 Jan 1996 : Column 898

Let us see whether the new, tough measures that the Government are about to introduce to deal with the most serious criminals have the support of the Labour party and its spokesman.

11.6 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): The police grant settlement is certainly not as difficult to live with as the local government settlement that we shall debate--and no doubt vote on--tomorrow, but it raises several issues that should rouse the Government from the dangers of complacency.

The principal complaint is that, although the settlement looks good in the context of this year's public sector settlements, it does not look so good when it is compared with the needs in the police service. The increase amounts to £235 million in police total standard spending. The estimated increase in pension costs this year is £74 million and estimated pay and prices increases amount to£179 million. The shortfall is even larger when the£20 million that is intended to pay for extra officers is taken out of the calculation and one looks simply at what police authorities have to continue and develop their work.

The settlement cannot make up for the cuts in last year's budget. It does not replace the officers that were lost last year, such as the 34 officers in Dorset, or the "million miles" of police patrols that the authority calculated had been lost as a result of cuts.

The Prime Minister promised 5,000 extra police officers at the last Conservative party conference, but questions remain unanswered and there is unease within the police service. It reminds me of the Conservative 1992 manifesto pledge that stated:

"We are continuing to increase Police numbers. There will be 1,000 extra officers this year.".

There were not. Although the number initially increased by 771, there have since been cuts of more than 1,300. The Prime Minister's latest promise must be called into question by the fact that a previous commitment was so clearly broken.

Some areas have been hit harder than others. Merseyside lost 151 officers, the Metropolitan police lost 409 officers and Avon and Somerset lost 82 officers. Those figures demonstrate that there is not much reality behind the Government's tough talk about law and order.

This year's pre-election settlement allows for 1,000 additional officers rather than the 3,000 that chief constables have been seeking for several years. That is what is on the table. The rest are phantom policemen for whom no resources are guaranteed.

The Association of Chief Police Officers questioned the Government's estimated cost of additional officers. It took the view that the figures failed to take into account the full costs involved, particularly the additional infrastructure and pension costs. The Committee of Local Police Authorities pointed out that the average annual cost of a police officer is more than double the £20,000 that is implicit in the Government's figures, and applies to all ranks of police officer. North Yorkshire has been allocated £276,000, which will not even pay for24 constables at probationer rates when all the on-costs have been taken into account.

There are further concerns about the on-going funding of extra officers. Costs will rise as officers progress through their training and career, and there is concern that

30 Jan 1996 : Column 899

the necessary money will not be available for that additional need. There is real uncertainty about what will happen after the three-year package--if it runs for three years--comes to an end. What will the funding be? Note will have been taken of the Minister's strenuous response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We shall seek to hold him to his commitment for as long as he is the Minister who can be held to it.

There have been considerable cuts this year in capital allocations. The Committee of Local Police Authorities makes the interesting comment that it has noticed an almost exact match between reductions in capital funding and the supposedly additional £20 million for extra police officers.

The impact of the reductions on authorities will be notable. In various areas, capital programmes that are of some importance will be delayed. In Hampshire, there has been a cut of £1 million in the capital budget. It is expecting, in three years' time, a £2 million funding gap in its capital programme, including expenditure on buildings, computers and equipment. There are serious implications. In a number of police authorities, the move to install encrypted radios has had to be slowed down because the money is not available. That is extremely important now that the means of breaking into police communications systems are so readily and cheaply available to criminals. It gives criminals an advantage and reduces police effectiveness.

Capital allocation cuts were described by the Association of Chief Police Officers as robbing Peter to pay Paul. One chairman of a police authority commented after the Government had cut its capital allocation and increased its revenue budget:

"We could have done that for ourselves."

There is some confusion about the private finance initiative. The Home Office says that PFI can be used to replace existing capital items, but the Department of the Environment says that it cannot. Clarification would be welcome. How are the police expected to plan their capital programmes when the Government move the goalposts so often?

The problem of pensions is yet to be resolved. There has been some provision within the funding mechanism, which the Minister described, but the real problem remains. It is more to do with the total funding that is provided for pensions. Cutting the cake differently is of only limited value. There needs to be a long-term solution to the problem, and the consultation process that is now taking place must lead to a solution, and to action on it.

The Government's plan for the future involves massive spending on a hugely increased prison population. Our vision is of preventing the crimes that would have put and kept offenders in prison by having enough police officers in the community who are properly equipped, and by tackling the root causes of crime.

---