| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'and the conduct of referendums'.--[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Bill (Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, and new clauses and new schedules relating to parts I and VII) reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
Police Funding (Avon and Somerset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
12.27 am
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon): I am grateful for the opportunity at this late hour to raise the funding of Avon and Somerset police.
The funding of our police service is a matter of considerable concern to my constituents, but I want to set my speech in the context of my respect and admiration for the work done by the force. Its officers serve our community faithfully and with great dedication. One of my aims is to ensure that advantage is not taken of that work, and that the force receives the backing that it deserves. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority for three years and brings great experience to the debate.
The dedication and professionalism of our force deserve from Members on both sides of the House not just warm words, but hard cash. That means cash for salaries and pensions, cash for officers on the ground, and cash for support services. My central contention is that the Avon and Somerset police force is stretched to the limit. I do not wish to be unnecessarily alarmist, but the force is clearly under pressure--pressure that is not entirely consistent with the language that the Government have used, and the way in which they have financed the force.
My normal custom in debate is to rely heavily on statistical evidence, and I shall shortly draw to some extent on facts and figures. First, however, I want to give some impressions of the current position from those involved in the police service. Let me start at the top, as I generally do.
The Bristol Evening Post recently ran a story quoting Avon and Somerset's chief constable, Steve Pilkington. He is not someone who rushes to the press lightly, or is regularly quoted as saying things that stir matters up. However, speaking of this year's budget settlement, he said:
I have done some research, and have spoken to officers at my local police station in Chipping Sodbury. They spoke of increasing pressure to take time away from front-line police duties. They talked about increasing pressure for training. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a well-trained police service, but if that means that a given number of officers have less time for front-line policing, the bare statistics about the number of officers will not reflect their ability to deliver on the ground. We want them to be trained in human rights, new legislation, and the use of equipment and technology. Those are all good things, but if they detract from front-line policing and, at the same time, there is pressure on police numbers, something somewhere will have to give.
To give perhaps the most extreme example that I have come across in just the few days that I have been making inquiries, to coin a phrase, one constable, who for understandable reasons asked not to be named in the debate, told me that, on 25 days in the past year, he had been told not to use his police car because the budget would not wear it. The cost of the petrol would mean going over budget. On 25 occasions, he was told to stay at the station, do some paperwork and not get in the car. That was spontaneous. I did not ring up and say, "Tell me it is terrible." He simply said, "Those are the day-to-day pressures that budgets are under. That is the effect on the service on the ground." That is a sign of a force that is under stress and being pushed perhaps a little too far.
What are the hard facts about the settlement and the position for Avon and Somerset? The police authority has estimated that there was a shortfall of roughly £7 million between the funding that it was given by central Government, the assumed rise in council tax, or in the precept on the council tax, and what it needed to meet the demands. In a budget of roughly £180 million, £7 million is a substantial figure.
Why are there such pressures? Two substantial ones are well known to the Minister. The effect of pay awards and inflation eats up all the additional grant and additional assumed council tax rise. Over and above that, £2 million is needed for police pensions.
I was shocked to learn that, in the budget overall, £1 in every £6 of net police spending goes not on the police, but on pensions. That is an arbitrary way in which to fund those liabilities. That is the position not just in the police service, but in the fire service and other sectors of public service.
I recognise what the Minister said in the debate the other day--I think on 3 February. The Government recognise that it is a problem. The previous Government, the Conservatives, said that they recognised that there was a problem. We all recognise that there is a problem. We do not appear to be any nearer a solution. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that, year on year, the Government will not keep loading pension costs on to forces at the expense of police officers.
How is the authority having to respond to that pressure on the budget? Most obviously, it is having to cut police officers. Reluctantly, the police will cut 30 officers from the force in the coming year--not front-line officers, but police officers based mainly at Avon and Somerset headquarters.
The Government have talked about 5,000 extra officers--5,000 over three years, of course--through the crime fighting fund. Yes, Avon and Somerset will get some officers. It bid for more than 160. It has been awarded 101, spread over three years. Next year it will get 20 additional officers--so 30 down, 20 up: a net loss of 10.
I was in the House this afternoon when the Prime Minister boasted about the investment in extra police, but Avon and Somerset will not have extra police. Despite the figures that he quoted, it will have 10 fewer officers next year. Last year, between March and September, Avon and Somerset numbers fell by 11. It was 11 down in that period and another 10 down this year, yet the Government talk about being tough on crime. They do not back that up with money to make it a reality.
As well as cutting the number of officers, what else has the force been forced to do? It has had to cut not only back-room staff--back-room police officers--but support staff. Funding of support staff decreased by a further 1.5 per cent. to 95 per cent.
The force sat down and decided what a good police service should do. It thought that it would investigate financial crime more. That has been scrapped. No additional investment is planned because it cannot afford it. It planned to make some long-needed capital investment to make the force more efficient and to replace worn-out equipment. A £2 million contribution from revenue was going to go into capital. That was scrapped.
There is an allowance in the budget for 3.5 per cent. pay awards, but there is no general provision for price changes, so, as prices rise, the budget has to bear those costs. Petrol is the classic case. Petrol prices have been rising very rapidly and hitting police budgets, so that police officers cannot use their cars, which are costing too much money to operate. It is an absurd situation.
What has been the impact on service provision? The police authority report states:
The report continues:
As the report states,
I believe that the Avon and Somerset police force is efficient and that it has made efficiency savings and achieved a great deal. However, constantly asking year on year for greater efficiencies without granting capital and making investment to achieve them eventually runs only into a dead end.
There have, therefore, been cuts in officers and in back-room services, but an 11 per cent. council tax rise. What can be done? I reassure the Minister that I have read in full the transcript of the debate of 3 February, when he announced the new grant settlement, which was debated in the House. Some of the points that I shall make today were made also in that debate. I shall therefore not make the points at great length, but they are particularly germane to Avon and Somerset.
Avon and Somerset has in previous years particularly, and to a limited extent this year, had to dip into its balances, taking them dangerously low. The force's
balances are now below the level recommended by auditors. One can almost picture the police authority with its collective fingers crossed, hoping that nothing happens or goes wrong, because resources and reserves are low and the officers are stretched. We just hope that there will not be a major call on the force. But is that any way to have to run a police service?
The funding formula needs to be addressed. The arguments on that are well known to the Minister. He is aware of the impact of sparsity on areas such as Avon and Somerset, and the Home Office has accepted its impact on policing costs. The area cost adjustment--which may seem irrelevant in this context--and the damping effect of using six-year-old establishment factors contribute to making the funding formula unjust. I think that it is widely accepted that the formula is unjust. However, the Government's bizarre response is to do nothing about it for at least a year, to ensure stability.
Stability is a virtue, but it is not a virtue that counteracts injustice. This is perhaps an extreme analogy, but if someone were wrongfully arrested, we would not say that stability demands that we should leave them in jail--justice demands that we should get them out. Stability does not counteract injustice, which should be tackled at the earliest opportunity.
I have already addressed the pensions issues. It is agreed that it is a problem. However, there is no sign of a solution, and the problem will only get worse with every passing year.
As for the council tax benefit limitation scheme, the fact is that, when the precept rises by 11 per cent., councils will--according to the police authority--be penalised by half a million pounds, which is the equivalent of 20 officers. Therefore, although so-called crude and universal capping may have gone, back-door capping is alive and well and affecting the decisions of police authorities on policing.
I just wonder how the people of Avon and Somerset would feel if they appreciated that decisions on police numbers--decisions to cut police officers from the force--were being affected by the modern equivalent of council tax capping. If they knew, I think that they would be very concerned. When they receive their council tax bills and see the precept rise of 11 per cent., they will perhaps assume that a major improvement in the force has been made, such as the purchase of a second helicopter. They will be shocked when they learn that it is accompanied by cuts in officers, planned investment and services.
We cannot talk only about inputs; we have to talk about outputs. No one can deny that, in the past six years, the Avon and Somerset force has made important progress in cutting crime. I welcome that unreservedly and pay tribute to the force. I have two concerns. First, we should not allow ourselves to become complacent by focusing on a high base period of the early 1990s, when crime was at record levels. With the aid of the Library, I have looked at the record for the past 20 years. In the early 1980s, recorded crime in Avon and Somerset was at barely half its present level. Although things are moving in the right direction, crime levels are still unacceptably high. There is a feeling that some people do not bother to report minor crimes, because they think that the police are too stretched.
The trends on recorded crime are moving in the right direction, but I fear that that will not continue in the medium term if the force continues to be put under pressure. In its survey this year, the force asked a new question:
"We have a very, very tight budget. We will have to reduce our support staff at HQ.
That is the perspective of the chief constable. He was not being alarmist, but saying that a gamble was inherent in the settlement for the coming year.
You take a risk when you do that. It does mean that when there is a major incident we won't be able to mobilise the support that we have done in the past."
"the loss of 30 officers from central staffs could impact on the level of support given to police districts"--
particularly if there were a major incident--
"and a further reduction in support staff will be felt in terms of internal service delivery".
That means the people who help police to do their job.
"it is only with an eye to the impact on precept that the Chief Constable has reluctantly proposed a reduction in authorised police strength."
In other words--even with a "measured" cut of 30 police officers--the precept is rising by 11 per cent. The chief constable, who is worried about the precept, after cutting 30 officers, was willing to allow it to rise to 11 per cent. That is the type of pressure that police are under. However, not only officers will be cut.
"a backlog of forensic samples may build up"
because planned additional investment in forensics has had to be cut. Moreover, equipment programmes have been pared, and other programmes have been deferred. The situation has the aura of make do and mend, not of a modern efficient police service.
"Were you satisfied with the perceived level of foot patrol?"
Just 11 per cent. of the public were satisfied and the figure was only 27 per cent. for the mobile patrol. The headline figures may be coming down, but the public are not receiving the reassurance that they want from their police.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |