THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE THIRD SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 348
TENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1999-2000
House of Commons
Monday 10 April 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Mr. Bernie Grant, Member for Tottenham. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Police Numbers (London)
1. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): What is the predicted net change in police numbers in London for the financial year 2000-01 over 1999-2000. [116785]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In March 1997, the Metropolitan police service had a strength of 27,166 officers. In March this year, estimated strength was 26,034 officers. From
1 April, 474 Metropolitan police officers are being seconded to county constabularies as a result of the boundary changes to the Metropolitan police district, bringing total numbers to 25,556. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, intends to maintain overall numbers at around that level for the current financial year. In addition, administrative changes made by the new Commissioner should mean an extra300 officers on the streets by the end of the financial year.
Dr. Cable: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that even after that increase, at the end of the next financial year there will be more than 500 fewer officers than he inherited? Does he acknowledge that there is enormous anxiety, especially in suburban areas such as mine, which have suffered disproportionate cuts, about the loss of police officers and the resultant petty crime and vandalism? Does he also acknowledge that there is a serious crisis of morale in the police force in London, and that, according to the Police Federation, the pay and the conditions of employment lead many police officers to resort to working part-time as, for example, pizza delivery men and nurses?
Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the arithmetic at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, although the total number of police officers matters, the way in which they are used--the amount of time that they spend in police stations, on operational duties and on administrative duties--is almost as important. We propose to ensure that there is less bureaucracy in the Metropolitan police service, as well as outside it. The Commissioner is taking that plan forward. It will make sure that there are more front-line operational officers available, both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere.
On morale, I acknowledge the serious discrepancy between the remuneration of officers who joined the police service after 1994, when the Sheehy arrangements were established by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was then Home Secretary, and the remuneration of those who joined
afterwards. Proposals from the employers' side to increase the London allowance for Metropolitan police officers are before the police negotiating board. We hope that an agreement will be reached on 19 April.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): My right hon. Friend knows that the price of houses is high in London, and that approximately 40 per cent. of new Met recruits come from outside London. In view of the launch of the housing Green Paper and the arrival of a mayor, will the Home Secretary consult colleagues in the House and outside to consider creative ways in which to provide affordable housing for new police recruits?
Mr. Straw: Yes. The Metropolitan police service already provides a good supply of affordable housing for some new officers. However, I accept that there is a problem, especially with the remuneration of Metropolitan police officers compared with that offered by other employment opportunities. For that reason, the employers have made the offer in the police negotiating board, on the basis of funds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made available to me and announced in the Budget three weeks ago. I hope that there will be early agreement in the negotiating board so that the differential--which, sadly, the previous Administration bequeathed to the police service--between officers who joined the service before 1994 and those who joined afterwards is greatly reduced.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Will the Home Secretary confirm that the substantial fall in police numbers in London means that in the past eight months, 23 London police stations have either had to close or are no longer open round the clock? What confidence has he that he can rectify the problem of Metropolitan police recruitment and retention? Is he prepared to say how much of the £80 million recently announced for recruitment and retention will be spent on the Metropolitan police? If it is not a good slice, the thin blue line will become ever thinner.
Mr. Straw: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I think is his Opposition Front-Bench debut at Home Office questions--certainly in front of me.
At all times and given any budget, whether a particular police station remains open or other changes are made in the service available to the public is a matter for the chief officer of police. No Government have ever guaranteed that an individual police station can remain open. It is essential that the police service is given the resources that it needs to provide a proper service to the public. That is what I have done in the three years in which I have set the Metropolitan police service budgets; in the previous year the police service in the Metropolitan police area enjoyed an increase of almost 5 per cent. in its budget. Adequate funds are available for this year to maintain total numbers at the level established by the Commissioner. In other words, by the end they should be similar to those at the beginning of the financial year.
I accept that there is a recruitment problem, and I have already dealt with that. Although I understand the concern of Londoners, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench are the last people in the world who should make points about current spending on the Metropolitan police service. I remind him--he may conveniently have forgotten--that the strength of the
Metropolitan police was cut by no fewer than 1,700 officers between 1992 and 1998, entirely under budgets set by the previous Conservative Administration.Police Numbers
2. Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): By what date he estimates the police forces of England and Wales will have returned police strength to March 1997 levels; and if he will make a statement. [116786]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We anticipate that the impact of our crime fighting fund, which was announced last October, and the additional allocation of resources in the Budget, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, will enable police numbers to reach their March 1997 level at or before the end of a full five-year parliamentary term.
Mr. Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to persuade my constituents and others that the information that police numbers in England and Wales will not be restored to the level that existed in 1997 under the previous Administration is not at odds with the election pledge of more bobbies on the beat? In particular, does he find it difficult to explain to my constituents in Hampshire that although our chief constable recently put in a bid under the crime fighting fund for more police officers, a 10 per cent. slice was taken off the top? My constituents do not want officers simply to replace those that we used to have; they want more officers to fight crime on the streets in our towns and villages.
Mr. Clarke: We are focused on having more operational police, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. As he has referred to his constituents, I draw his attention to the situation in Hampshire, where, although police numbers have declined by 41 to 3,411 since March 1997, civilian support staff numbers have increased by 87 over the same period. The increase in civilian numbers is significant. It includes operational posts such as scene-of-crime and fingerprint officers, and is the result of the chief constable's judgment of how to get best value in reducing crime in his county.
The hon. Gentleman will know that crime in Hampshire decreased by 4.5 per cent. in the 12 months to October 1999. For that achievement, I pay tribute to the chief constable and his force, who have been working to fight crime, rather than trying to score cheap points in party political debate.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Does the Minister agree that even if police numbers are falling, it is essential to keep to the minimum number of police per shift, and not to breach it? That has obviously happened in Barnet over the past few months, with only22 policemen on a shift instead of the minimum 32. Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between that diminishing number of police on the beat--he must address that problem, and I know that he wants to--and the turnaround in crime in the metropolis, which increased by 8.5 per cent. last year after six years of reduction?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that issue in detail during the debate on the police grant.I answered his points then, and my right hon. Friend the
Home Secretary, too, has addressed them directly. We are focused on getting more operational police in Barnet, and everywhere else in the metropolitan area, by the means that we have described, which my right hon. Friend discussed a moment ago.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Does my hon. Friend agree that not only police numbers in separate forces, but the way in which those police officers are used, is important? Will he note the fact that the police in my area have managed to get 14 extra officers on the beat in Burnley and Padiham without receiving any extra resources?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct, which is why it was decided--rightly, in my opinion--to give chief constables operational responsibility to decide how to use their resources, rather than having the Home Secretary specify establishment numbers. Increased investment in technology, modernisation of the criminal justice system, and more effective partnerships such as those with which his force in Lancashire is taking a lead, are the ways to achieve more effective operational policing. I would like much more of the debate to focus on those aspects, because that is what the people of this country want.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I thank the Government, and the Minister in particular, for giving Staffordshire police the extra money for 83 more police officers, but does he not realise that that comes on top of a cut of 250, for which the Government will be condemned? He blandly says to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that he wants to leave it up to chief constables to decide what they do with the money that they are given, but does he not realise that in real terms, Staffordshire and other police forces get less money than they received in 1997? Is that not, like the Budget, another example of taking one step forward but three steps backwards?
Mr. Clarke: I have discussed precisely those issues with a delegation of Staffordshire Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, and directly with the chief constable of Staffordshire. I am well aware of the issues, and the fact is that we are increasing the money. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Budget, because one of its effects will be to ensure that what was a three-year programme to recruit the extra officers to whom he refers will now be completed in two years, and that at least twice as many officers will be recruited in the first year as had been planned. We are moving the programme forward, and a little grace on the hon. Gentleman's part would be in order.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |