---

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that this House has dealt quite well indeed with such sizeable lobbies in the past. We have become accustomed to doing so over a good many years. I assure him that we shall do our utmost, as we always have done, to ensure that all steps are taken to enable those who are lobbying--quite peacefully, one hopes--to have access to their representatives, and that the lobby around the precincts of the Palace and in this House is conducted in the best possible order. I hope that Members who are involved in the lobby, and who want to see the people who are coming here, will support and help the authorities on Monday in their efforts to see that everything is carried out in the best possible order.

BILL PRESENTED

Energy Saving Materials (Vat Relief)

Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John McAllion, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Clive Efford, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. John Hayes, presented a Bill to extend VAT relief on energy saving materials; to require the preparation of reports on energy saving materials; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 68].

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1275

Opposition Day

[7th Allotted Day]

Policing

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

1.15 pm

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): I beg to move,

That this House pays tribute to the high standards of policing in this country; endorses the priority of the last Conservative Government in increasing the strength of the police by over 15,000; but deplores the policies of the present Government, which are leading to reductions in police strength, cuts in services and the introduction of non-police patrols at a time when it is essential to build the best possible relations between police and public.

The debate is set against the background of a much bigger national debate about the role and position of the police in Britain. That is, in my view, a debate of fundamental importance, in relation to which the Government risk adopting exactly the wrong policies for the challenge that we face. That debate has been given added force by the publication of the Macpherson report, and it is with that report that I start.

The Macpherson report is undoubtedly important--not only because of the tragedy of Stephen Lawrence's murder, but because of the changes and reforms that the report points to, which we shall debate shortly. However, let me say first what the Macpherson report does not say and does not justify. It does not justify a generalised attack on the police service. It does not justify a generalised attack on the thousands of policemen and policewomen who do their job conscientiously and well, sometimes despite enormous difficulty and danger. It does not justify a generalised attack on the standards of the police in this country, which in my view remain high--probably higher than those of any comparable European country.

Of course, errors must be put right and mistakes corrected, but we should be clear in our minds that we do not have a racist police service; the Macpherson report does not say that we have. Enemies of the police should not pervert the message of the report to that end.

What we do have is a police service that, in one respect, leads Europe and, arguably, the world. It is not that the British police are better equipped, and goodness knows it is not because we have the strongest police service numerically; it is that there is greater trust between police and public in this country than anywhere else. Most people regard the police as their friends and allies. In February 1999, a Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph found that no less than 83 per cent. of the public found the police mainly polite and helpful. Obviously, we need to extend that feeling of trust even more, but I very much doubt that such trust exists in France and Germany.

The police service is not one of our worst, but one of our best services in Britain, and it has been consistently successful in its public order task since the second world war. Any Government who were to put that relationship at risk would deserve censure.

None of what I have said is an argument against change; change is part of any organisation. When the police service was established, the police had to fight for

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1276

acceptance, so there is nothing new in their fightingfor acceptance, or improving their efficiency and effectiveness--but all that must be for a purpose. As the chief inspector of constabulary suggested a few days ago, the most important performance indicator is the local community satisfaction rate--how satisfied the public are with the local police.

What do the public want of the police? They want an efficient police service, but they want more than that. They do not want a police service that simply reacts and responds to emergencies and emergency calls. According to the Gallup poll that I mentioned earlier, their greatest complaint is as follows. No less than 79 per cent. of the public agree with the statement that the police are invisible and that there are too few bobbies on the beat. In other words, what the public want is an extension of community policing. My concern, and the concern of virtually everyone whom I respect on the matter, is that Government policy is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. Rather than more police, we shall have fewer. Rather than better services, we shall have worse. Rather than trained police, we are being offered non-police patrols.

I debated some of those issues with the Minister of State, Home Office on the "Today" programme this morning. It is always interesting when the Minister of State, rather than the Secretary of State, does an interview. I stress that I am not critical of that decision; I know how sensitive the Secretary of State can be.

When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, I told my then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that it was time that he raised his profile and did interviews on cold weather payments.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): It did not do the right hon. Gentleman any harm.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not know what happened to my right hon. Friend. I also remember telling my other Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that he could tap his cigar over John Humphrys, rather than in my office. I think that it was in that spirit that the Minister of State was deputed to the "Today" studio to discuss the police.

The Minister of State's account of Government policy on the police provided an entirely new perspective on the police service under this Government. The police service may think that it is under pressure but, according to the Minister of State, real-terms spending on the police is up, police forces are rolling in cash, and policemen are falling over one another as they patrol the streets of our towns and cities. As for non-police patrols, he has not even heard of them, or of the prospect of introducing them. That is the wonderful world of Walt Boateng.

If that is the case, it is strange that those who must implement the Government's policy do not seem to see it in quite the same way. The response of the Association of Chief Police Officers to the 1999-2000 Budget settlement could have been written in reply to the Minister of State's injunction, "Let's be real". ACPO's response stated:

"This settlement leaves the police service well short of what it needs. Let's be realistic. Government cannot expect any public service, least of all the police with their wide responsibilities, to meet all the public's expectations with such a shortfall."

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1277

The Association of Police Authorities, which has a Labour chairman, said of the same settlement:

"The overall increase in spending provision for police authorities in England and Wales is 2.7 per cent. Even when augmented by locally generated efficiency gains, this will be inadequate to meet the current demands facing police authorities, let alone provide for growth and investment."

The Police Federation commented:

"One of this Government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order. But Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front line services."

Who is right--Home Office Ministers or the police service, which has to manage as best it can with the budget that it has been given?

I have figures calculated by the statistical section of the House of Commons Library. Between 1979-80 and1996-97, there was a 354 per cent. cash increase for the police. In real terms--that is, above inflation--there was a 74 per cent. increase in those years.

On the basis of this Government's spending plans, between 1997-1998 and 2001-02, there will be an 11.2 per cent. cash increase for the police, which amounts to a real-terms increase of 0.7 per cent. That is the difference in priority between the Conservative Government's policy on the police, and that of the present Government.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) rose--

Ms Hazel Blears (Salford) rose--

---