| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.1 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and to other hon. Members for being unavoidably detained and missing the start of the debate.
I will make a brief speech, concentrating on two themes. First, the West Midlands police force--one ofthe largest in the country--is not suffering under the misapprehension that it has had a resource cut; in fact, the budget for 1999-2000 shows a total revenue expenditure increase of about 2.3 per cent. It is significant that, in its budget planning, the West Midlands force has been able to put an extra 50 constables out on direct patrol on the streets. It has been able to do that because, as in Manchester--as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) explained--the force is engaged in a radical exercise in sector policing, which is designed to cut out wasteful bureaucracy in the police force.
The West Midlands police force has the highest percentage of constables to other ranks in the country, and the lowest management costs in the country. That theme is extremely important in terms of police funding.
As resources are made available, there are particular aspects of policing and projects to which we would like to see more money directed. Personally, I think that there is more scope for the use of technology in DNA processing, which would be an investment worth making. It is important that we get value for money. The key to that is to reduce management costs and to get a greater ratio of constables to other ranks.
The hon. Member for Beckenham said that numbers matter, and I understand her point. However, it strikes me as significant that the Audit Commission reports have pointed out consistently that, even where the numbers are high, there are forces which, at any one time, can call on only 5 per cent. of their total force to patrol the streets. One must ask what kind of organisational structure pertains where, out of a force of huge numbers, only 5 per cent. are doing active policing. The lessons from Manchester and the West Midlands must be taken on board by other forces if we are to get greater value for money and efficiency.
My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). In this day and age, it is difficult to understand how it can be reasonable--with all the amazing technological advances, and the inevitable costs that they impose--to have 43 police forces spread throughout the country, ranging in number from 950 officers to 29,000. We have 43 authorities that are duplicating the costs of chief constables, personnel departments, research and development departments, payroll departments and purchasing departments. That seems to me to be an extraordinary waste of money.
I would not urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take direct action to compel forces to reduce overall numbers, or to rationalise the size of police forces. However, where improvements can be made by sharing at least some of those activities, there is scope for amazing cost savings, and that would be a significant step forward. I would particularly like to see a regionalised police force--the time has come when we can afford to reduce the number of forces from 43.
I am not concerned now with the question ofa democratic deficit because of two significant developments. The first is sector policing. Local superintendents are now accountable to the local population, so there is direct democratic accountability. That is the great strength of sector policing. The second development is that the introduction of police authorities
in itself removed directly elected accountability, in the way that it was understood traditionally. Having made that step, we do not need to rehash the old argument.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) about police forces. Dorset is a relatively small force, but it is efficient and commands public support. I do not wish to see vast county or regional forces, or a national force. The British system of doing things, with a degree of local accountability, is the best. The county forces, including some of the smaller ones, have a good record. Problems have tended to occur in some of the larger forces, particularly the West Midlands force and the Met. The smaller forces have delivered a good service over the years.
I wish to refer to the overall concern about funding and numbers. I know that "more funding and more numbers" is not the only answer, but it helps in terms of the management of the police. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made an intelligent speech--apart from her political points at the end--and made some good points. However, the reality is that, in Dorset, we are struggling with pensions--as are all forces. Over the last 10 years, police pensions as a proportion of budgets have risen from 7 to 13 per cent--an added strain without additional budgets. That is a problem with which all Governments have had to deal.
Apart from pensions, there is the problem of the millennium, which--as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) pointed out--is a predictable event. Major public services, whether police or hospitals, will have to make extraordinary arrangements to deal with that.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will cost £20 million. Much of that Act has been welcomed by my local force, and it may have a positive role to play in policing. However, there are resource implications that have not been addressed fully within budgets.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate and introducing it with such skill. Although there are undoubted differences between hon. Members across the Floor of the House, all of us, regardless of party, are united in acknowledging how much we and our constituents owe to the professionalism, dedication and constant vigilance of our police service.
My hon. Friend sensibly drew attention to the fact that there is no straightforward correlation between police numbers and police effectiveness in tackling crime. However, like my hon. Friend, other hon. Members pointed out that police numbers do matter.
For example, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) noted, it is a matter of concern, especially to people in rural areas, that they may at times have to rely on a response time target from a relatively remote urban centre, rather than having officers on duty, particularly over the weekend or through bank holidays, in the police office or police station in their own village or market town.
The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) demonstrated all the passionate, born-again zeal for tight budgets that one would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. With a cut of 113 police officers in Greater Manchester since the general election, I am not surprised that she steered clear of that subject.
More generally, there is a difference between a considered decision by a chief officer to deploy more of his officers to intelligence gathering, problem-solving policing, surveillance and targeting known villains and repeat victims--for which there would be support across the House--and chief constables and police authorities feeling compelled to reduce the numbers on their establishment below the level that they would regard as satisfactory, simply because of budget constraints resulting from spending decisions imposed by central Government.
The Home Office's figures show that there has been a reduction of more than 1,100 police officers since the general election. The biggest losers include London, where the figure is down by about 680; Sussex, where the figure is down by almost 240; and West Yorkshire, which has lost more than 200 officers. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 29 have cut their police numbers since 1998.
The Government's priorities for spending were made clear in their comprehensive spending review. The figures that I have seen suggest a cash increase of 2.7 per cent. in the current year, plus the hoped-for efficiency savings. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government's published spending plans involve real increases of no more than 0.7 per cent.
As four fifths of police expenditure goes on pay, a tight budgetary settlement inevitably means that there will be an impact on manpower. That has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, which have all vigorously drawn attention to the fact that such a tight settlement will make it extremely difficult for them to deal with the priorities that they have been set by the Home Secretary, and to provide the quality of service that they want to give to their local communities.
ACPO has said that an increase of 6.1 per cent. in police spending is needed in order to stand still in the provision of service. If the Government disagree with ACPO's assessment of necessary expenditure, I hope that the Minister, in his response or in writing subsequently, will spell out in detail the methodology that the Government have used to reach a different conclusion from that of ACPO.
As time is short and to enable the Minister of State to respond, I shall concentrate on three topics related to resources, on which I hope the Minister will comment. The first topic is patrols. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) expressed concern about problems affecting the special constabulary. The Minister knows that there has been considerable disquiet among police officers at the idea that, partly as a consequence of constraints on resources, the Government may be considering greater reliance in the future on ancillary citizens patrols or private security patrols of some sort.
Concern about that is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches. A Labour peer, a distinguished former officer, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, warned in another place of
What powers would those patrols have? Would those on patrol hold the office of constable? What would their relationship be to the police? Would there be disciplinary procedures if the powers of those patrollers were abused?
The second topic is pensions. The inspectorate of constabulary concluded that police pensions will cost about 14 per cent. of police expenditure by the financial year 2001-02. It is just over a year since the Home Office published its consultation document on police pensions. Lord Burlison, another distinguished Labour peer, said in another place:
My final point concerns the public safety radio communications project--PSRCP--to which other hon. Members alluded. I am sure that the Minister of State is aware of a letter of 17 June from the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, Dr. Henig, to the Home Secretary, in which she wrote:
"substitute, second tier public or private patrols, which certain chief constables are flirting with."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 723.]
We on the Conservative Benches have no problem with voluntary initiatives in support of the police. Neighbourhood watch was a great success story of the 1980s, and I am delighted if those on the present Treasury Bench have been converted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the advantages of "walking with a purpose". It is always pleasant to see Labour Ministers swallowing the words that they expressed in opposition.
"We intend to publish soon specific proposals on the future of police pensions."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 737.]
I hope that the Minister will tell us how soon that document will be published and over what time scale the proposals will be implemented.
"It is already clear . . . from the indicative prices that many authorities will face very serious problems if the full cost of this service is to be met from existing funding allocations."
She continued:
"The police service cannot afford to finance PSRCP within the existing level of police grant, without a direct effect on the availability of officers for frontline policing."
My own authority in Thames Valley told me that its estimates suggest that the reality of absorbing PSRCP costs within current baselines set by the Government would result in the need to reduce police officer strength by 167.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |