| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): I am afraid I have some bad news. Uxbridge police station is now closed between 2 am and 6 am. No police station front desk in the Hillingdon division is now open during those hours.
Mr. Heald: That reinforces the point that my hon. Friend was making on 3 May. There is real concern about access to the police at the times when people are most worried about crime, and most fearful.
We should not ignore that public concern, and the issue of numbers is crucial to it. It is the cuts in police numbers in London that have led to the cuts in police stations, and
in the hours for which they are open. The numerical strength of the Met--the number of officers available, rather than the budgetary strength--has taken a battering recently. When the Government came to power in 1997, it was 27,166. Yesterday, Sir John said that the figure was 25,480. That is a drop of nearly 1,700 in just over three years. The thin blue line is becoming ever thinner. That is just the figure for the Metropolitan police; the City of London police have lost more than 100 officers in the same period.Sir John has said that he needs to maintain at least 25,600 officers if he is to police London properly. He says that
- if numbers continue to dwindle we're in trouble, make no mistake. We have reached a point where I am going to have publicly to say that we don't have enough officers to police London properly . . . We do not have enough officers to police London with confidence.
- You've got to have feet on the beat to put hands on collars.
Will the Minister tell us what analysis the Home Office has made of the impact on recruitment, and the number of extra feet on the beat, of an official offer to increase London weighting, which the Home Secretary announced today?
Mr. Straw: As I said, we are of course concerned about the reduction in numbers, and have introduced significant measures to ensure that they return to where they should be.
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that about a third of the reduction that he mentioned is accounted for by the transfer of officers from London to Essex, Kent and Surrey? Will he also acknowledge, in a spirit of non-partisanship, that the Metropolitan police suffered a serious squeeze between 1992-93 and 1997-98, when it lost 1,700 officers? Since then I have sought, with only relative success, to stabilise numbers. We have seen nothing like that decline in the last three years.
Mr. Heald: I think the Home Secretary will recognise that there was a background of organisational changes in the force between 1992 and 1997, as in almost every other walk of life. Middle management was removed. It is true that police numbers fell slightly across the country, but there were 2,500 extra constables; and in London, although there was a small fall in the number of constables, it was nothing like the number quoted.
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): The last Government announced their response to the Sheehy report in October 1993. The figure for April 1995 shows a drop of 1,178 in Metropolitan police numbers in 12 months, and a national
drop of 2,069. That was the impact of Sheehy, from which we never recovered. Metropolitan police numbers in London peaked just before Sheehy.
Mr. Heald: I do not accept that the one follows the other. The fact is that a reorganisation was taking place--[Interruption.] There was a reorganisation, which meant that chief inspectors were no longer appointed and there were cuts in middle management. The present Government have taken no steps to reverse that.
If the hon. Gentleman feels that the numbers that existed under the Conservatives--which, after all, had increased across the country by 15,000 since 1979--were not satisfactory, how must he feel now? Even according to the Home Secretary's figures, if we take full account of secondments to Hertfordshire, Essex and Surrey, London numbers have fallen by 1,200 in three years, and it looks as though that fall will continue.
Let us examine the way in which the crime fighting fund is alleged to work. I understand from written answers given by the Minister that over the next two years the Met will recruit, or have transferred in, a total--this is the base figure--of 1,068 officers. Over the same period, 2,700 Met officers will leave the force or transfer out, making a net loss of 1,632 officers. Since then, a growth in the crime fighting fund has been announced, which should result in 1,113 recruits over two years. However, the Metropolitan police, despite the much-vaunted crime fighting fund, will lose 519 more officers between now and March 2002.
I am trying to discuss these matters in a non-partisan way by simply setting out the arithmetic contained in parliamentary answers. However, the Met has already lost 1,200 officers--taking account of secondments--and will lose 519 more. In addition, the City of London force has lost more than 100 officers. That is far from satisfactory.
Mr. Efford: The April edition of the police magazine, The Voice of the Service, contains an article headlined "Sheehy's chickens come home to roost". It states:
- The "substantial savings" that resulted from the Clarke/Sheehy/Howard era have already inflicted great harm on the police service.
Mr. Heald: Circumstances have plainly changed since the time of Sheehy, but I would never admit the point that the Home Secretary has made with the benefit of hindsight.
Mr. Heald: It is true; at the time of the Sheehy proposals, the housing situation in London was much different to that pertaining today.
Mr. Straw: How does one admit a mistake except with hindsight?
Mr. Heald: Let us take this matter seriously. If one makes a decision on day one, and 30 days later something has happened that changes circumstances for the future,
one was not wrong in the first place but must be sensible enough to change one's mind. We have made it clear that we are willing to reconsider housing allowances, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear to the Police Federation conference. I do not accept the admonitions offered either by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) or the Home Secretary.It is worrying that the position--the hon. Member for Eltham agreed that it was unsatisfactory--will get worse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke) indicated dissent.
Mr. Heald: Yes, it will. A further 519 officers will be lost unless the Home Secretary takes some action.
Mr. Heald: That is no good: even on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, 519 more officers will be lost. That will be the overall effect of the crime fighting fund. If he says that he is introducing measures to improve recruitment, we shall welcome it. However, he is not budgeting for a return to the figures he inherited when the Government came to office. Over this Parliament, there will be a massive reduction in the number of officers available.
The effects of all that are being felt in London. Crime is rising--in London, it rose by 12.6 per cent. in the past year.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there would have been a reduction of 519 officers whether or not there had been an announcement today of the extra £3,500? If so, is he against that increase?
Mr. Heald: The Met is budgeting for a further loss of 519 officers by March 2002. The situation would have been far worse than that, however, because the Met has found itself unable to recruit necessary officers. Instead of losing 1,700 officers over the course of this Parliament, the force would have lost far more. Some people suggested that the Met would have had 23,000 officers available for ordinary duty--2,600 less than the figure identified as the absolute minimum by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The danger was that instead of the disaster of losing a further 519 officers, there would have been a catastrophe as numbers fell too far to allow any sensible policing of London. The Government are merely papering over the cracks, not sorting out the real problem--that numbers need to rise to the level in place at the 1997 general election.
Mr. Heald: This has to be the last time on this point.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |