| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: I intervene again only to say that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that I advocate, or have advocated, the use of private security firms or local authorities to replace the police in patrolling duties. I have not done that during the 30 years in which I have taken an interest in police matters. I deeply resent the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is, as usual, trying to play the person, rather than make the argument.
Mr. Straw: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's position, I accept his assurance. I was not misleading anyone; I was merely reading the words from the record and giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.
The Labour Government came to power determined to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The police are the first to say that they cannot tackle crime on their own; local communities have a crucial role to play. The Crime and Disorder Act will strengthen those local partnerships. The Government made no promises on police numbers; at the election, we promised to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat, and we are doing just that, as I have already explained, by streamlining criminal justice procedures, reforming the Crown Prosecution Service and improving police efficiency.
Our aim is to make people feel safer and to ensure that the chance of their becoming victims of crime is reduced. Efficient, well-targeted use of police resources is the best way to achieve that. The public know that that is now our aim; they also know that we are intent on delivering it. That is why they so comprehensively supported our law and order agenda at the election and rejected the Conservatives.
2.24 pm
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for being unable to stay until the end of the debate; I have to attend the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at 3 pm. That Committee is a procedural innovation that is proving popular, perhaps more so than Opposition day debates.
I should like to associate the Liberal Democrats with the comments praising the work of our police forces all over the country. As community-based politicians, we are immensely proud of the essential, important and successful work carried out by our community-based police service. In large part, that service commands the respect of the community through a tradition of policing by consent, which we want to continue. It is in that light that we want to talk about police numbers.
We regret that we cannot support the Conservative motion and have tabled an amendment giving our view on police numbers. Although we agree with some of the sentiments in the latter part of the Conservative motion, it contains no apology for their period in government and we believe that a little humility around the kitchen table would be in order when discussing police numbers. At the same time, we are critical of the Government's view on the matter and are unable to support their amendment.
Much of the argument seems to be about two key judgments. The first is whether size matters in the police service and the second is whether the Home Secretary is responsible for that. There is an analogy to be drawn with class sizes: not every class of 30 pupils is automatically better taught or more successful than a class of 40. However, the Government seem to have accepted that, in general, size does matter in respect of class sizes and that more teachers produce a better output. We argue strongly that similar considerations must apply to the police. Although a direct correlation cannot be proved in every force between an increase in the number of police officers and the success of that force, common sense suggests that a larger police force will generally lead to better results and a smaller police force will generally lead to less good results.
In respect of whether the Home Secretary is responsible for police numbers, he has correctly referred to the technical legal position. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members, who were responsible for the legislation devolving responsibility to chief police officers, complain that the Home Secretary has not mandated police numbers. However, just as on class sizes the Government did not hide behind local education authorities' responsibility, but accepted that there is a direct correlation between the funds given to LEAs and the class sizes in individual boroughs, so the Home Secretary could give strong indications, and the funds to back them up, on police numbers, which could result in an increase in police numbers. On the other hand, if he gives no indication that that is his priority and there are no corresponding resources, there will be a fall in police numbers.
As the Home Secretary points out, the Conservatives made some specific commitments. He left us to guess whether those commitments had been met, but Liberal Democrat and Labour Members know exactly what happened because, when the Conservatives were in power, we spent much time attacking them for the
faults to which he referred. It is interesting to hear different arguments from Labour Members now that they sit on the Government Benches, which suggest that they no longer have the same interest in police numbers as they had when they were in opposition. When the Conservatives were in power, Labour's view clearly was that size did matter.
While they were in opposition, Labour Members were clever in not committing themselves to increasing the numbers of police officers, but we believe that they gave the clear impression that they would do so. They strongly criticised the Tories for falling police numbers and their carefully worded manifesto stated that they would
Angela Smith:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) resisted my attempts to intervene. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Labour's criticism of the Conservative Government was of hypocrisy, because the Conservatives constantly argued that they were providing more police officers, but failed to do so?
Mr. Allan:
I am content to accept that Labour's argument was about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. Liberal Democrats also made the same criticism, which was levelled at an open goal created by the former Prime Minister, who set up that huge target but stepped aside and watched police numbers fall. However, at that time, when the public heard Labour's spokespeople calling for greater numbers of police or criticising the Conservative Government for allowing the numbers to fall, they understood that a Labour Government would not allow the same thing to happen. During the 18 months from 31 March 1997 until the production of the latest figures, there has been a fall of 781 officers in England and Wales. Since the election, 25 out of 43 police forces have faced cuts in the number of officers. The Government could have made that a priority if they had wanted to.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
While the hon. Gentleman is giving the House and the country a history lesson, would he care to go a little further back to when the Conservative Government first came to power in 1979? Police morale was at an all-time low and the police were threatening national strikes. Police morale was improved only by the Conservatives' commitment to provide, from 1979 throughout their period in government, a proper payment structure and proper support for the police. Prior to 1979--I know that the hon. Gentleman was very young then--the Liberal party was as bad as the Labour party for attacking the police.
Mr. Allan:
I am interested to hear history lessons, but I am not sure whether I wish to explore the boom and bust in police morale from the Callaghan Government in the 1970s onwards. That may not be germane to this debate.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is only fair, having taken
Mr. Allan:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point: we need to look across the spectrum of policing and other related areas.
The introduction of non-police officers is an important consideration. Civilianisation programmes have been mentioned in discussing how far events have moved and the relevance of police officers. Police forces are recruiting more civilian officers to free front-linepolice officers from bureaucracy and time-consuming paperwork. We support that approach, which I hope is welcomed on both sides of the House. However, that does not explain why 10 forces have seen a reduction in their civilian staff since the general election. Seven forces have seen a fall in the number of both civilian and police officers, and that combined reduction must affect the impact of those police forces.
We accept that there is more to tackling crime than police numbers, but our communities will not feel secure unless we get those numbers right. The Metropolitan police have been mentioned as a case in point. There is no doubt that they have faced the brunt of recent cuts. Since the general election, the Metropolitan police have lost 571 officers and 1,460 civilian staff--a 10.8 per cent. reduction. It is widely expected that that trend will continue, with recruitments not matching retirement levels. The Home Secretary said that Metropolitan police numbers will be within 75 of their current total. However, we must ask: 75 in which direction? The Home Secretary's careful wording suggests that the force will be 75 officers down--there would have been a bigger hurrah if he had announced an increase of 75.
It is a crucial time for the Metropolitan police: they must recruit more officers, particularly from the ethnic communities in response to the Macpherson report. The downward trend in recruitment makes it harder for the force to achieve the targets that the Home Secretary will set. Figures published last week by the Home Office in response to a parliamentary question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) show that the number of officers in local divisions of the Met is falling even faster than the headline total.
The total figures show that, in an 18-month period, the number of officers fell by 571. However, the total for local divisions is 1,208 for the past two years. While the Met has lost 31 officers on average every month, the local divisions of the Met have lost 50 officers a month. That suggests that front-line policing is suffering as a result of the cuts.
The Library has produced some useful analysis of police funding over the lifetime of this Parliament. I would like to examine the Government's record in this Parliament rather than their inheritance from the Conservatives. We criticised at the time of the election--and have continued to criticise ever since--the Government's decision to maintain Conservative spending plans. The Government repeat headline figures, and they have a wonderful knack of rolling three years' spending into one. The comprehensive spending review cited some very large numbers which become significantly smaller when we divide them by three and take account of the fact that they are announced several times for added impact.
According to our analysis of the comprehensive spending review, total police funding will increase by 2 per cent. in real terms--that must be a good thing. However, over the lifetime of this Parliament, funding for police will increase by only 0.01 per cent. in real terms. In 1998-99, the police suffered real-terms cuts for only the second time in 20 years. The previous Government can take credit for their average real-terms increase of 6 per cent. in police funding. Potential police numbers under this Government are causing great concern, as is the increasing cost of police pensions, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We still see no ultimate resolution to that problem, which will continue to drain resources from front-line policing.
As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Norman Fowler) mentioned, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities have been critical of the Government. The Association of Police Authorities went further in describing the kind of struggle that police authorities are facing. It said:
"relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat."
That allows them the get-out clause that there was no absolute commitment. However, the public expected the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", to mean more police officers, not fewer.
"all authorities will be walking a tightrope in balancing front line police numbers with the need to invest in the very latest technology."
That is an area of critical concern. I recently visited the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and there is no doubt that a force such as that needs the latest technology as much as do the shire and the metropolitan forces on the ground. Police forces need sophisticated technology of a kind never seen before, which adds to the pressure. We do not want our forces having to choose between purchasing essential new technology and fulfilling their role of patrolling our streets. The police must have sufficient resources to carry out both of those essential functions, as well as the new functions--the partnership arrangements--under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which Liberal Democrats welcome.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |