| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.33 pm
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): As I rise to offer the Liberal Democrat response to the report, I am once again confronted by the strange role reversal of the Labour party in government and the Conservatives in opposition.
On these Benches, we are thinking of equipping ourselves with simultaneous translation equipment in the manner of the European Parliament, so that, when we hear
the Minister telling us that this is a perfectly adequate settlement, that is translated as, "I was only pretending when I called for more resources in opposition"; and when the Conservative spokesman attacks the settlement as inadequate, that is faithfully rendered as, "We were only pretending when we spent years arguing that similar settlements were perfectly good."
I welcome any contribution to the debate that uses the popular phrase "the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government," which can be read as "an excuse for absolutely anything, which we will use just as long as we can get away with it."
The first thing that we must be clear about with regard to this year's settlement is who will pay for the 3.7 per cent. increase that the police forces are getting. The Government have said that they expect the average increase in police authority precepts to be greater than the rate of inflation. The Minister's estimate of £5 on the precept for a band D property actually represents an 8.7 per cent. increase.
It is unfortunate that, once again, the local council tax payer is hit in order to maintain the fiction that taxes are not being increased, when what is really meant is that income tax is not being increased.
The Minister found this such a shameful funding mechanism that, in last year's debate, he was not sure whether to call it
With an increase in the police precept above the rate of inflation, the public might reasonably believe that they would see an increase in the number of police officers in their areas, but that is unlikely if last year's example is anything to go by. The 3.7 per cent. budget increase delivered by the Tories last year led to fewer police officers. There has been a fall of 300 officers from the March 1997 figure of 125,051 to the September 1997 figure of 124,751.
Last year, the Minister enjoyed attacking the Conservative Government for their "con trick" over police numbers. His party was careful not to make a commitment of its own on police numbers, but the clear implication of the Labour argument was that falling police numbers were a problem. In new Labour-speak, that may be translated as "size does not matter".
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in relation to the Greater Manchester police? Year after year through those 18 years of Tory misrule, the chief police officer wanted an extra 120 officers, who were denied to him by the Home Office. We now find that there has been a further fall in the number of police officers since the Labour Government came to power. Does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts of councils such as Stockport to improve crime prevention measures and to work with the police to fund special constables are undermined by such outcomes, and that what matters are the outcomes, not the inputs of cash?
Mr. Allan:
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which adds local colour by describing the problems that people are facing on the ground.
The police establishment, as the Minister pointed out, is now a matter for the police forces themselves, since the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which the Minister was then happy to criticise. He told us that the change to locally decided establishments was the result of constant scrutiny by his vigilant Opposition, and that the Conservatives had introduced it as a smokescreen to cover up cuts in police numbers.
I hope that the Minister will be able to rise above the low motives of the previous Government and not simply dismiss concerns about police numbers as someone's else's problem. We have enough "blame someone else" disease in agriculture, without bringing it into the Home Office as well.
It is common sense that the principal factor in deciding the police establishment is the level of funding, and that remains the Government's problem.
Police effectiveness is not just a function of resources. The recent Audit Commission report is a timely reminder that effectiveness is about management and how we use those resources. I shall single out from the report the performance of my local force, the South Yorkshire constabulary, which achieved very good results in spite of a relatively low level of funding for a metropolitan force.
My experience from talking to the South Yorkshire force and from colleagues in other areas is that important changes are taking place and are bringing improvements. Local policing plans are helping to set clear targets and priorities. The devolution of responsibility to divisions is helping. Investments in community policing are reinforcing our tradition of policing by consent--a tradition that may have suffered in the past from the perception that the police were remote agents who arrived by car only at a time of crisis.
The Liberal Democrats support those moves. We want to see a police force firmly based in our local communities and working with other agencies. We believe that the best way to help potential victims is to prevent crime in the first place.
In accepting the broad outcome of this year's settlement, we want to raise with the Minister certain points that give us concern about future settlements. The first is the issue of police pensions, which the Minister mentioned. The time bomb has been ticking away for some time. We look forward to a Government announcement on when they will issue a consultation paper setting out the possible reforms.
The second key concern is the cap on the Home Office budget in general--the set of handcuffs that the Government have placed on themselves by sticking to the Tory spending plans.
The criminal justice system, by its nature, is demand-led, and there is growth in particular areas, such as prison populations. If we are able to increase police effectiveness, we can expect to see that demand grow further still: more prisoners will come on stream as more criminals are caught by an increasingly effective police force. The Home Secretary has said that he can deal with that increase only by moving resources within the capped budgets. We seek the Minister's reassurance that police budgets will not be damaged by the demand for extra spending elsewhere.
Thirdly, we hope that the Minister will address capital funding. While it is not covered specifically by the report, the 12.7 per cent. cut--down from
£205 million to £179 million next year--will place further pressure on police budgets. The cost of supporting older plant will be higher, and investment priorities may divert funds from front-line resources.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will take on board the new demands that the police will face. There is a welcome trend towards community policing, and a series of measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will require the police to put in place and enforce orders. Speeding up the youth justice system will mean the devotion of considerable police resources to joint working with the courts and other services. We hope that that fresh officer time will be funded through police settlements, and the fall in police numbers is extremely worrying in that context.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
I shall do my best to present the main points of my speech in the short time available--as usual, the speech that one does not deliver is the best.
On 2 November, the Minister wrote to all north Wales Members of Parliament, saying that money was tight and that the Government had inherited a very difficult and challenging situation. I shall give him some free legal advice: if one inherits a burdensome bequest, one can always relinquish it. The Minister could start by re-examining spending limits. I agree that Government money is tight--it always will be. I know that the Minister will fight his corner with the Treasury--the people who control much more of Government than is apparent at first glance.
The settlement offered to the North Wales police is disappointing. The North Wales force is extremely efficient and well run, but the money that it has been offered is clearly insufficient. The Home Office expenditure forecasting group reported an unavoidable need for growth of about 3.9 per cent. plus inflation. Therefore, there is a considerable funding gap between what is needed and what has been offered--in short, there is an unavoidable shortfall of £1.7 million or 2.5 per cent. That will mean further cuts, and more internal efficiency savings.
The North Wales police force is very well managed. A major restructuring exercise undertaken in recent years found that some senior ranks were not necessary, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said. The "flattening out" process has gone well in north Wales, and has produced substantial savings in many areas.
I urge the Minister to re-examine the settlement for the north Wales force. The cuts cannot go on for ever. Rural police stations have been told that officers may travel only 15 miles in their motor vehicles. That absolutely incredible position is one result of the yearly squeeze on resources.
The current approach must change. All hon. Members are concerned about policing: it is a core service. Some people claim that crime is not a major issue in rural areas, but unfortunately that situation is changing. Therefore, the sparsity and rurality elements of the settlement must be re-examined. The day population of north Wales is hugely inflated during the summer months, and perhaps the settlement does not sufficiently recognise that fact.
"institutional theft or another Tory tax rise"--[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 460.]
My translator tells me that that should now read "a sensible and necessary measure to keep the Government's pledges on tax, made necessary by 18 years of Tory rule".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |