| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only previous victims and the police are frustrated and incredulous, but subsequent victims who, when they discover what has happened, ask, "Why on earth were these people let back out into the community to perpetrate an offence on me?"
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely. If such cases are brought to the attention of hon. Members of all parties, I hope that they will write personally to me about them. The more detail they can provide, the better. I shall raise them with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. We have asked the courts to get a serious grip on the problem. Ensuring that persistent offenders are remanded in custody, when there is every possibility of their committing further offences if they are released, will make a significant difference to the instances of crime, especially street crime and burglary, in our capital.
Let us consider resources for the Met.
Mr. Heald: Is it not right that more and more youngsters get involved in robbery because they feel an
increasing confidence in doing so, while the police are hamstrung by more targets? Those are the views of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter.
Mr. Straw: The purpose of the targets, which the Metropolitan police service agreed, is to try to tackle some of the serious crimes, including robbery. I have great respect for Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter, but, without knowing more about the context, I cannot say that I wholly share his view. We have agreed a robbery target, among others, with the Met to get robbery down. Officers in the Met fully support it and we are backing the target with money.
Until the early 1990s, the Met was the beneficiary of its history when it came to setting budgets, because each year's allocation between forces was largely based on what they had got the year before. However, a series of tight financial settlements in the 1990s and the new specific police grant based on a needs formula led to a tight squeeze on the Met and a reduction in officer numbers of some 1,800 between 1992-93 and 1997-98.
From the first budget that I set in 1998-99, I have endeavoured to ensure that sufficient funds are available at least to maintain existing strength. In the event, that has not proved possible. Despite a 4.1 per cent. budget increase in 1998-99, there was a reduction of 144 officers in that year, and there have been further reductions since then. In general, that has not been for want of funds, but principally because of recruiting difficulties.
The Metropolitan police budget for 2000-01 has been set at £1.842 billion. That includes a significant increase of 40 per cent. in the so-called special payments since 1997-98 to £182 million, which recognises the special demands of policing the capital and seeks to redress some of the anomalies inherent in the needs formula. The Commissioner intends to maintain overall police numbers at around 25,600 throughout the financial year 2000-01.
I am taking action in two ways to address the issue of police numbers in London. First, the crime fighting fund provides a guarantee that the police in England and Wales will have the resources to recruit 5,000 more police officers than they would otherwise have recruited over the next two years. The Met's allocation is sufficient to fund 1,113 additional front-line officers over the next two years.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, there is no doubt that officers recruited to the Metropolitan police service since 1994 have been hit hardest of all by the double whammy of the loss of housing allowance, which followed the Sheehy report in 1994, and more recently by the rising housing costs in London.
I am therefore pleased to announce to the House today that the pay of all officers in the Metropolitan police service who joined on or after 1 September 1994 and who receive no housing allowance will increase from 1 July--next week--by £3,327, or £64 a week. That is a significant increase in their pay, and they deserve it. It means that post-1994 recruits and officers in the Met will be paid significantly more than other comparable public sector workers.
The £3,300 increase in pay for officers recruited on or after September 1994 will bring the starting salary of a constable up to £22,635. With five years' service, he or she will get £27,609. There is also sometimes substantial
overtime, which on average amounts to between £4,000 and £5,000 a year for London constables, although that can vary between one constable and another.The £22,600 starting pay for new constables in London compares well with the starting pay for a good honours graduate teaching in inner London, of £18,366. After a period of years, such teachers can earn a maximum of £26,374 and then be eligible for performance bonus.
This is a good pay package, which, I am pleased to say, has been warmly welcomed in a statement this morning by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He said:
- I believe this award recognises the loyal service of officers already working in London and will help both to increase recruitment and to prevent officers leaving the Metropolitan Police Service.
- no real problem at the present time in the pre-Sheehy group
The award will take the total London lead over officers outside London to £6,000 per year--£120 a week. It will substantially bridge the gap between them and those officers doing the same job who joined before 1 September 1994.
Mr. Edward Davey: May I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement, which restores to post-Sheehy London police officers the housing allowance which the Tories effectively abolished? However, may I ask him to keep this matter under review, because housing costs are a major factor for all public sector workers in London, particularly the police? Will the extra reward be funded with additional funds to the Metropolitan police service or will it have to come out of existing budgets?
Mr. Straw: We keep these matters under review, and there is a proper negotiating process for them. It is unlikely that I shall be able to persuade my colleagues in the Treasury to find an increase of another £3,300 very quickly. It shows the importance that we place on the work of London police officers that the starting pay of London police officers is now substantially more than, for example, another important group--I say this as a governor of a London school--namely, teachers in inner London.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): Although the increase will be welcomed by Metropolitan police officers, what assurance can the Home Secretary give about the effect on recruitment and retention of officers in other forces, such as that in Surrey where my constituency is?
Mr. Straw: I have just been reminded that I have not answered the second point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Most of the additional cost, which is, from memory, £24 million in a full year, will be paid by funds from money that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget on 21 March. A small proportion will come from the existing resources of the Metropolitan
police service, but the Commissioner is satisfied that the additional moneys can be found--it amounts to £2 million or £3 million out of a budget of £1,800 million.The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) asked me about the effect of the pay rise on recruitment in Surrey. We cannot say for certain; there is a continuing debate about the effect of higher--in this case, significantly higher--pay in London on public services in outer London. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has already met chief constables from the home counties forces. If good evidence is put before us of serious recruitment problems in those forces, we will take that into account and look at it. Discussions are continuing.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster) rose--
Mr. Straw: I shall give way first to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary.
As the discussion about numbers and resources will continue, despite the announcement that the Home Secretary has made today, which of course I welcome, can he say whether the figure of £25,600--the target figure--is post-realignment of the boundaries?
Mr. Straw: It is post-realignment. Some 100 officers have been transferred to forces in the home counties.
Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary must know that we are well below that target, with the latest figure being £25,480. Will he comment on Sir John's comments yesterday? He said that although he welcomed the reinstatement of a form of housing allowance recommended a couple of days ago,
- quite honestly, I do not believe this will be enough to attract the quality applicants we need.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |