| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that today's announcement will make no difference to the projected number of police officers? Surely there will be more money for the police and per police person.
Mr. Heald: I certainly welcome that, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to read what Sir John Stevens had to say yesterday. He welcomed reinstatement of the housing allowance, but added that he "quite honestly" did
- not believe this will be enough to attract the quality applicants we need.
The effect of cuts in police numbers and the number of stations open has been that crime rose by 12.6 per cent. last year. Street crime went up by 36 per cent. in 1999-2000. On four of the five main indicators, public satisfaction with Metropolitan police performance has fallen. Sir John is making every effort to reverse those trends, but he is not helped by the legacy of underfunding for police numbers during the past three years. Nor is he helped by policies such as the early release scheme, under which 811 robbers have been released early.
In an earlier intervention, I quoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter, who said that young criminals are feeling more confident. They know that there are fewer police officers and that a large number of people convicted of robbery have been released early. The chairman of the Police Federation has said that there is a crisis of no cash, no confidence and no colleagues. It is welcome that the Home Secretary is starting to address serious issues, but he is too late to reverse the trend quickly. Once young people become confident that they can commit offences without being caught or without serious penalty, a culture develops in which there is lax law and order.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman spoke about a crisis of cash and a lack of funding. To some extent, it is admitted that the lack of funds stems from the Sheehy changes of 1994. We have heard today about the increased funding that the Government propose for the police. What increased funding would the hon. Gentleman's party give to the police in London to address the very problems that he has discussed?
Mr. Heald: We have made a clear commitment to find the funds to restore police numbers to the 27,166 officers inherited by the Government.
Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary can ask that, but it will clearly depend on when the Conservative party retakes office--[Interruption.] The way things are going, it will not be that long.
The Prime Minister denied that policing was in crisis on the same day that the Home Secretary spoke at the Police Federation conference under a great big placard--"Policing in Crisis". I suggest that the Government ask police officers what they think. It is easy to talk about police stations closing without fully realising the impact, but the people of Biggin Hill, Chislehurst, Westcombe Park, Collier Row, Lee Road and Barnes will realise it because their stations have closed during the past year. In addition, stations at Muswell Hill, Highgate, St. Ann's, Brockley, Banstead and Tooting have had their hours reduced. Other stations have closed or had their hours reduced, too. That causes concern and anxiety, of which the Home Secretary should be aware.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the police station at Collier Row had closed. I can assure him that it has not.
Mr. Heald: If that is so, the hon. Gentleman might tell the Minister of State, who said in an answer to me:
- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that six police stations closed during 1999.--[Official Report, 15 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 59W.]
Mr. Cohen: Are Conservative Members making a commitment to reopen those closed police stations, or to ensure that those that have limited hours stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
Mr. Heald: Our point is that the previous number of police officers has to be restored. Those police stations are not able to offer the service that they once did because there are not enough police officers to man them.
The detailed policing of London is always, of course, a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the authority. We are making the point that, with the size of police cuts that we have had since the general election, fewer open police stations and reduced hours are inevitable. If the Home Secretary thinks that that point is wrong, I am very willing to allow him to intervene. It must be right that, if one cuts officers, the service offered to the public will be cut.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: No, not now; I should like to make a bit of progress.
The point that the Home Secretary made on the establishment of the first Metropolitan Police Authority and the end of his role in the job needs a little further examination. [Interruption.] If the Minister could listen for a moment, I should like to make a point that he might deal with in his reply. Will he comment on the very public intervention by the Mayor of London in the Lawrence family compensation case? I ask him to comment not on the details of the case itself, but on the Government's attitude to that type of intervention by the Mayor in Metropolitan police affairs. Surely the Metropolitan Police Authority is not the same thing as the Mayor. I should be grateful to know how the Minister thinks that the interaction between the Mayor and the authority will work.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I shall deal with that matter in my reply. Now, however, I shall simply say that responsibility for policing London is the Commissioner's and the Metropolitan Police Authority's, not the Mayor's. That is absolutely clear.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister. However, it would be helpful if he would amplify on that a little in his reply, as there might be some confusion in the Mayor's mind about his exact role.
Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I do not speak for the Mayor of London on anything, and that, in a long political history, I never have?
Mr. Heald: I fully accept that. I know that the hon. Gentleman certainly does not speak for the Mayor in that
sense--far from it--but perhaps he could outline a little more fully how he sees things working in future months and years, as the issue has been widely commented on in recent days by both the public and the media.The matter of the equipment available to the Metropolitan police--such as the Metropolitan police vehicle fleet--is also causing concern. In answers to questions that I tabled, the Home Secretary revealed that, in March 2000, about one quarter of the Metropolitan police vehicle fleet was taken off the road for repairs and was out of action. Why was that? Can the Minister give any assurance that, in future, police will have vehicles that work? How has the Met been coping with the decline in the number of available vehicles? What impact would he say that has had on street patrols?
The Minister will also be aware that great concern has been expressed about 999 calls. He will have seen the Evening Standard article on that matter, which made it clear that
- Scotland Yard is in danger of being overwhelmed with emergency calls amid a staffing crisis and a surge in the number of people dialling 999 . . .
Many emergency calls to the police are now met with a recorded message telling people they are in a queue and will be answered shortly. Senior officers say they are coping with the surge in calls but one 999 operator told the Standard: "We are basically losing it. On one recent shift 20 to 30 calls were being held in a queue."
I should also like to deal with the recent report, "Winning Consents", into the Met's investigation of murders. The Commissioner's and the Home Secretary's responses to the report are welcome and thorough. However, does the Minister agree that the report shows that senior investigating officers have a very heavy work load of murder cases, and that their work load is heavier than those in any other part of the country? Does he think that the action that has been taken so far is adequate to deal with a very difficult problem?
Will the Minister also comment on liaison on state visits? When the Met admitted the difficulties that occurred during the visit of President Jiang Zemin of China, it seemed to emerge that the Home Office had had barely any involvement in discussions on operational policing matters for the visit, and that the work had been done by the Foreign Office. Could the Minister explain that, and also the overlap of responsibilities? As he will know, there is considerable public concern about the way in which that particular visit was policed, and about the fact that the Foreign Office, rather than the Home Office, seemed to be doing the liaison. In a letter to the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary admitted that Home Office officials were not involved in liaising with the Foreign Office on planning policing of the state visit. It would be good to know which part of the Government deals with that matter, and that the issue is being addressed.
It is clear from this month's edition of the Police Federation magazine that one thing causing concern and some offence to police officers is the public's inability to
visit as they wish the memorials to brave police officers. One result of the closure of Muswell Hill police station seems to be that the memorials to PC Nat Edgar, who was shot in 1948, and to PC Keith Blakelock, who was killed in the Broadwater Farm riot, are no longer accessible to the public. Could the Home Secretary look into that matter, and mention it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner? The matter is obviously causing concern to police officers.Will the Minister join me in applauding the work of the men and women of our capital's police service? They keep us safe and make many sacrifices--personal, financial, and sometimes even the ultimate sacrifice. I pay tribute to their work. I look forward to the force--under Sir John's leadership, and in the new era of the Metropolitan Police Authority--adding to its already considerable achievements. Long may they continue. I hope that the whole House will join me in sending a message of good will to the Metropolitan police on this traditional annual debate. From what we have heard, this may be the last such debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |