House of Commons
Friday 14 November 1997
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Policing of London
[Relevant document: The report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1996-97 .]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
It is a great honour for me to address the House for the first time on policing in London in my capacity as Home Secretary and as police authority for the Metropolitan police. I grew up in suburban Essex, just within the boundaries of the Metropolitan area, and have for years lived down the road in Lambeth, so I am very familiar with how London is policed. In my first few months as Home Secretary, I met the Commissioner on several occasions, accompanied police officers on patrol in Brixton on two occasions, addressed the annual open meeting of the Metropolitan Police Federation and launched the firearms amnesty in Lambeth.
Last week, I had the sad duty of attending the funeral of Police Constable Nina Mackay, who paid the ultimate price for trying to make London safer for the rest of us. Nina Mackay died following a stabbing in Stratford last month. I am sure that I speak for the whole House and for all Londoners in saying that we all salute her courage and dedication. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The price that Nina Mackay paid reminds us all of the courage and dedication of every police officer who performs his or her duties every day of the year.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
We all utterly share the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary. Does he agree that the whole problem of police trying to protect our security is dramatically illustrated in the annual report that he has before him, which shows that last year 12,000 officers were injured while on duty? That means that a Metropolitan police officer is likely to be injured once every three years. Does not that illustrate the danger to which we subject our police in trying to protect our capital?
Mr. Straw:
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. I should clarify the fact that the 12,000 figure is the total number of injuries--I shall come to that later in my speech--but some 3,000 officers are injured each year as a result of assaults and, of those, about 1,800 have to take time off duty. Even those figures illustrate the danger that police officers face. Sometimes police officers in the Metropolitan police area, as elsewhere, suffer the most horrific injuries, yet, despite those injuries, they return to active duty.
The Metropolitan police requires strong leadership to command respect and discharge its responsibilities. I am confident that in the present Commissioner and his senior management team the police service in London has that leadership, and I place on the record my thanks to, and confidence in, the current Commissioner.
This is the first policing of London debate since February 1996, when the Metropolitan police's performance for 1994-95 was debated. Although the Home Secretary is the police authority for London and an annual report should form the focus of debate each year, during the previous Parliament the House had the opportunity to debate policing in London only three rather than five times. The reason for that absence of debate is clear: the previous Government were profoundly embarrassed by the lack of practical support that they gave the Metropolitan police. Despite their rhetoric, far from ensuring that the Metropolitan police was equipped to serve Londoners effectively, the previous Administration oversaw a fall in the number of police officers in London of 1,300--from a peak of nearly 28,500 in 1991 to just under 27,200 at the end of April 1997. Police officer numbers may not be the best measure of policing, but it was the measure which the previous Government chose to use and, on that measure, their record on policing in London was a significant failure.
Policing is a substantial public spending programme involving more than £7,000 million this year, over 20 per cent. of which was spent on the Metropolitan police.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire):
The Home Secretary might have mentioned the thousands of extra police in London since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, but we can debate that. In his report, the Commissioner links a decrease in police numbers last year with two factors: the London formula and the Police and Firemen's Pensions Act 1997. Do I take it, from the Home Secretary's criticism of the previous Government, that he will change the London formula and the way of paying police pensions, in order to give more comfort to the Commissioner?
Mr. Straw:
I shall make some general remarks about resources for London later, but let me answer the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions. There has been continuing examination of the formula for London. When I announce the police grant in about a month, that formula may better reflect the needs of London policing than it did in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about pensions. I appreciate that he did not do the Home Secretary's job when in government, but the previous Administration sat on a major review of police and fire service pensions, because they found the issue too embarrassing. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that that report will surface in due course. I look forward to his support and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends for the difficult decisions that will have to be taken in respect of the police and fire service pension arrangements.
The demands that are made of the police service are well demonstrated by the Commissioner's annual report, but we are faced, through what we have inherited from the previous Government, with a tight public expenditure round this year and a tight round for next year. Pressures are great, and difficult decisions are required to ensure that our priorities are properly resourced.
In addition to the difficulties that the police service in London has faced over the police grant, the Metropolitan police have been left with barely adequate levels of reserves as a result of the previous Government's funding decisions.
As police authority for London, I have been having a series of discussions with the Commissioner about the Metropolitan police service's budget for 1998-99. I want to ensure that the Commissioner has adequate resources for effective policing in London. No final decisions have been taken on next year's funding allocations. The provisional settlement for the Met will be announced along with that for other police authorities in the next few weeks.
Resources are limited, and the police service, like other parts of the public service, cannot be immune to that reality. The quest for efficiency improvements must be relentless. In my discussions with the Commissioner about his budget, I have pressed him to continue to increase efficiency and effectiveness throughout the Metropolitan police service. I am pleased to say that he is already making significant strides in that regard.
Mr. Keith Hill (Streatham):
Does my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that his repeated visits to Brixton, which I represent in part, are greatly appreciated by the local police, local voluntary agencies and the local public? Will he join me in applauding the success of the Lambeth guns amnesty that he launched two weeks ago? It has already yielded nine weapons and a considerable amount of ammunition.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that areas such as Brixton and Streatham require constant high levels of policing? It has been a cause for anxiety that in recent years there have been regular cuts in front-line policing. I am somewhat reassured by the message of potential optimism in his remarks about the forthcoming budget announcement, but will he look particularly at resource allocation in the No. 5 south-west area, the Metropolitan police division that includes Streatham and Brixton, where it is felt that the formula has worked to the disadvantage of front-line policing?
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his compliments. I was wondering what was coming next, and I was not disappointed. Of course I shall take full account of the pressures on resources and the needs of No. 5 police area, along with Nos. 4, 3, 2 and 1 police areas.
The Government must be sure that all public spending programmes are in line with our priorities and objectives. That is a key purpose of the Government's comprehensive spending review. The study of value for money in the police--which is taking place as part of the review--provides us with an opportunity to take a wider perspective on value-for-money issues. We are looking at value for money not just in terms of buying goods and services at the best price, but in terms of measuring performance against objectives, and getting away from a focus on inputs towards a concentration on the outputs of the police service.
Let me make it clear that while I am Home Secretary and police authority for the Metropolitan police, I am determined that the House will be able to debate the
policing of London every year. However, I hope to be able to relinquish that post and pass it on to representatives of the people of London.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain how it came about that the Home Secretary took on the position of police authority in 1829. In that year, Robert Peel raised a new kind of standing body almost overnight and in a capital city where the largest organ of local authority at the time, apart from the City corporation, had been the parish vestry. We all know that after some early difficulties, the Metropolitan police service became a success and the model for forces internationally, as well as in this country. However, the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 did not of itself ensure that the new institution would be a success.
That Act did not rationalise the policing of London, as is sometimes supposed. Indeed, in a sense it confused it further by dealing only with the parish police and leaving the rest of the police services in London intact. Thus, the City became an island in the Metropolitan sea--and remains so today; the Thames police remained aloof, and so did the horse patrol and constables attached to police offices set up under the Middlesex and Surrey Justices Act 1792. Conflicting and partial jurisdiction was a problem from the start.
Peel, it appears, had first proposed a board of three magistrates to run the new force. However, in the end the Act set up two magistrates at the head of the force and a third official, the receiver, to be responsible for accounting and supplies. The role of the Home Secretary was to have overall political responsibility, the power to appoint--through the Crown--the top three officials and an ability to direct--to some degree--the actions of the magistrates.
In 1829, the following arrangements were in place:two magistrates, who quickly became known as Commissioners, were responsible for operations; the receiver, who was accountable for resources; and the Home Secretary, who was answerable to Parliament.
9.34 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |