| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on obtaining this debate on police funding in Lincolnshire. In a way, it is his second bite at the cherry. When the debate was scheduled for 25 January in Westminster Hall, he was so preoccupied to ensure that the leader of his party was not vulnerable in Prime Minister's questions that he wanted to knock out the next day's business. He therefore spoke in the debate on the Floor of the House, so we lost the debate on this subject. However, I am glad to have this chance to debate it now.
The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000-01 on Thursday 3 February. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised important issues affecting police funding for Lincolnshire police during that debate, and I appreciate the way in which he raised them.
Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised by hon. Members in the Chamber in previous Adjournment debates, most recently by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December and in other debates on crime. It is a genuine issue, and I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) takes it.
I should put on the record Lincolnshire's current funding position. For 2000-01, funding will be £65.4 million--an increase of 3.3 per cent. over the previous year, and higher than the national average of 2.8 per cent. In 1999-2000, the force's funding increased by 4.4 per cent., which again compares well with the national average of 2.5 per cent. There have been two years of above-average increases in Government funding for Lincolnshire. That is a good result for Lincolnshire police and the people of Lincolnshire, and it is more than many other forces received. I, like the hon. Gentleman, pay tribute to the chief constable for advancing his case, but I pay tribute too to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has pressed that case hard in both public and private representations.
Government funding is not the whole picture. It is for the police authority to decide on its final budget, along with any corresponding increase in council tax, but there is scope for the police authority to increase spending power next year by asking council tax payers to contribute more, and we are all familiar with the political judgments and trade-offs that exist in that regard.
The police increase of precept on council tax last year was 3.9 per cent.--the second lowest in England and Wales at a time when many forces took decisions that went the other way. When, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, I discussed education with the leader of Lincolnshire county council last year, we discussed the matter at some length. Issues remain to be discussed openly, involving, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, Government funding, but also involving decisions taken by the police authority about the appropriate precepting regime.
In 1999-2000, Lincolnshire will spend an estimated £111 per head of population compared with an average for the shire counties of £114.50 per head of population. That figure is slightly lower than the national average, but I would argue that it is not significantly so. As the
hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with the police and local authorities, can address the issues of crime within the context of partnership. In Lincolnshire, as in many other parts of the country, partnerships can mobilise the resources of the community at every level in order to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending.
Many rural communities throughout the country have welcomed the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which institutionalised effective partnerships on the ground and ensured that people could work together effectively. Many partnerships in Lincolnshire seek to develop in a variety of ways and the Government wish to do all we can to help.
The effect of all that on crime in Lincolnshire was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln in her intervention. In general, there has been good news for Lincolnshire. In the 12 months to 1999--according to the most recent published figures--crime fell by 2.3 per cent, bucking the national increase of 2.2 per cent. That is a tribute to the police and the local communities and partnerships that have worked hard to reduce crime. The percentage change translates into an average of 7,496 crimes per 100,000 population in Lincolnshire, which is significantly below the national average of 9,984.
I do not want to suggest any sense of complacency. We continue actively to discuss the targeting regime and appropriate procedures to drive down crime further. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the debate, it is a good time to pay tribute to everyone in Lincolnshire who has played a part in ensuring that it is relatively free of crime in comparison with other parts of the country and is continuing to drive crime down.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford):
The Minister is an able and competent man who takes his duties seriously. I am sure that he will not wish to use the limited time available to us as a result of the admirable initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) without addressing the central point of the debate. That is that police funding in England is based on the standard spending assessment system, under which Lincolnshire is structurally underfunded because there is no recognition of the county's sparsity. We have the greatest sparsity of any county in England, and the distribution of population is unusually evenly spread. That means much higher costs for delivering any given level of police service, yet as the Minister has acknowledged, we have the lowest funding--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order.
Mr. Clarke:
As always, I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. When we served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, I was well aware of his ability to make powerful and effective points at some length--as he has just done.
The next point in my speaking notes is headed "Sparsity". I do not think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough attended the debate on the police grant--unlike his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham--so he may not be aware that I dealt with sparsity at some length on that occasion, as I intend to do in this debate.
I understand the disappointment that we did not implement the recommendations of the research report on the cost of policing of rural areas. Recently, I met a delegation of representatives from the rural authorities, led by Lincolnshire, and which included my Norfolk authority. The authority that polices my constituency is one of those affected by the sparsity formula. I discussed the matter in great detail, and I pay tribute to the role of the chairman of the Lincolnshire police authority in co-ordinating that group.
Last Thursday, in the debate on the police grant, I mentioned the role of the chairman. He wrote to me asking what I was referring to. I told him that I was concerned about the way in which the Lincolnshire police authority had raised the issue of sparsity in a press release. That press release was intended to be on behalf of the rural authorities affected by sparsity, but several representatives from such authorities--notably from Northamptonshire--said that it did not speak for them.
My advice to everyone prosecuting the sparsity debate is to do so according to the genuine merit of their case. I emphasise that point. The debate should not involve party political point scoring. Some police authorities are in strong Labour areas--others are in strong Conservative areas. Members of Parliament from all parts of the country advance arguments in what is a legitimate and fair debate, but it is not right to make it a party political one, as I tried to point out.
During the summer, the findings of the research report on policing rural areas were considered by a Home Office-led group, including representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities. Various views were expressed and there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected--as the hon. Member for Gainsborough correctly pointed out during his speech.
The Government understand that rural police authorities, such as Lincolnshire, will want those research findings to be implemented. However, we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities to plan ahead--for the reason given by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in his intervention. We need to ensure that the whole SSA system is right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |