| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Jan 2007 : Column 419WH—continued
“that efficiency gains will be used as a means of balancing budgets. If efficiency gains cannot continue to be made, this will have a major impact on police resources, and ultimately service provision”.
In relation to the GMP, we have already seen—as previously referred to—that to balance a £14 million budget shortfall last year, the force has made cuts of 200 police officer posts and 48 police staff posts. It has also cut the mounted section, the dog section, the £1 million budget used to fight street crime and robbery, and the number of officers trained to deal with public disorder. It has civilianised a variety of posts and made other cuts to overtime and non-staff budgets. In the previous year, it made more than £7 million of cuts in police, staff, overtime, buildings and equipment.
The Treasury says that on top of the cuts and efficiencies that the GMP has made, it and other forces will have to make further efficiencies. The Treasury says that nationally £250 million could be saved by better overtime and sickness management and that there could be further savings from improved processes and so on.
The Minister will have to tell us and reassure us that forces will be capable of making those savings. He needs to spell out how those efficiencies can be made and what the Treasury and the Home Office are demanding of forces. The force leaders are telling us that their people will feel the impact. The head of finance for the Association of Chief Police Officers has said:
“If you start pinching back on your income then you are going to have to cut back on your expenditure. Given the fact
that we are a very people-intensive service, that inevitably means the people who deliver the job on the frontline. So, really, it’s quite serious.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned, we have already seen what has happened with police community support officers in the GMP and the promises that the Government made in their manifesto. In the respect action plan that was published a year ago, the Government promised 24,000 police community support officers nationally. The consequence of their reneging on that pledge is that the GMP will receive 410 fewer police community support officers than were promised, as my hon. Friend said.
The Minister will say, “Ah, well the police asked us for flexibility”, and so they did. However, if the decision were just about flexibility and allowing chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources, that could be supported. The chief of the GMP might well decide that he would prefer to recruit police officers than police community support officers. That should surely be his decision, but what happened is that the resources were taken away. The head of ACPO has pointed out that
“only £35 million of the £105 million”
that should have been returned—along with the flexibility for forces to recruit as they wanted to—has in fact been returned, so there is a gap of £70 million. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where that money has gone. Of the £35 million that was returned, £20 million went to the Metropolitan Police Service, so the provincial forces have lost out. As the head of ACPO said:
“Being given the flexibility to manage decline is not a position we have sought”.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) mentioned the crime fighting fund and the Minister berated him for not knowing of the changes that had been made three days before Christmas. There is a clear reason why the hon. Gentleman did not know that those changes had been made: the Minister has not revealed them. They have not been published to the House or to the press. Indeed, there was an instruction from the Association of Police Authorities to its members not to publicise the changes. The police and police authorities sought those flexibilities, but again the concern is that flexibilities against a tight financial climate will result in a cut in the head count, not only of police staff but, potentially, of officers. As the head of finance at ACPO has predicted:
“Most forces will lose some officers or police staff. There will be fewer people working in police forces in the future.”
If we are to have a sensible debate about the merits of the crime fighting fund, the Government should publish what they have done. That information has been given to the police and the police authorities, so why has it not been given to the House? Perhaps the Government will publish those figures before next week’s debate on police finance, but in the meantime it would be good if the Minister did not berate hon. Members who do not know about the changes that have been made.
The public have paid heavily for the increases in police numbers that the Minister will no doubt tell us about. The amount of police expenditure that is financed through council tax has doubled in real terms
between 2001 and 2006-07. Council tax now accounts for more than 21 per cent. of police force expenditure nationally, as compared with 12 per cent. in 2001-02. I expect that that situation is almost certainly replicated in the GMP.
In conclusion, the public have paid for increases in policing. They are entitled to see that those increases are maintained. As hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have said, people want a visible, reassuring police presence on the streets, whether that is through police officers or PCSOs. The Minister needs to tell us more about what kind of efficiencies he expects from the police over the next few years, given the financial background, which they are alarmed about. As the chief constable of the GMP said in 2004:
“We do need more police officers and I am constantly arguing to get more officers and also to ensure that we get the very best from those that we have.”
It is right that he should say that, and that he should expect to make efficiencies in his force. He has done so and he is a very good chief constable. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the concerns that have been raised about how the GMP and other forces are to make the kind of efficiencies that are expected of them in future.
12.15 pm
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) suggested that now is the right time for the debate, and I have absolutely no problem with that. It is right and proper and in the interests of all Members to debate such matters before or after the budgetary spending review. I have no difficulty with that at all, and I shall not hide behind—I think that was the phrase—the increases in police funding since 1997. I am proud of those increases and of the innovation of police community support officers. Let us be clear: whatever their numbers, they simply would not exist had any other Government been in control. This Government conceived and delivered them.
By way of introduction and before I come to the specifics of the debate, there were some interesting themes underlying hon. Members’ suggestions, and that is where the wider and larger debate should be. It is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) said, about the nature of policing, neighbourhood policing and the multi-agency partnership approach that we must use to deal with much of what happens at the lower level—lower in terms of the hierarchy of crime, not the communities on which such behaviour impacts.
Another fair and reasonable debate would be about how we, collectively, through a range of agencies, deal preventively as well as actively with much on that continuum of low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. The police are up for that debate, and they are keen to get involved with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and others. If my hon. Friend says that Stockport does such work very well, I am more than happy to agree with her. It is done well throughout the country, too.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) touched on the following point in his closing remarks. It is right and proper to debate what we want our police officers to do, and what the balance should be between police officers, police staff, police community support officers and other specialists. In specific terms, the debate is the domain of the local chief constable, but placing the debate in the national domain is worth while. It is also appropriate to debate the—I think euphemistically entitled, because it is not quite the right phrase—“work force modernisation” programme and other measures to analyse how the police do what they do.
I said when I first entered this ministerial role that it is terribly nice of me as Minister with responsibility for police to say that there are 142,500 police officers—a record number—in this country, but if I cannot guarantee at any one time 138,000 officers out there policing, it is not much use. One of my officials said that actually, in some circumstances, there are probably more like 125,000 to 130,000 officers—or fewer—out there policing. Everyone agrees that accountable, visible, on-the-street policing is what all communities want, and that is what we aspire to.
I am glad that for everyone apart from a few unreconstructed people, the debate has moved on from the notion that PCSOs are anything other than supplementary to, complementary to and supportive of police. They are neither substitute police, nor plastic police as they are sometimes referred to rather disparagingly, and they have carved out a real and distinctive role that adds to Manchester’s policing needs and to those of every other community. They are here to stay.
I could do the “line-to-take” stuff and tell everyone what has happened since 1997 and which trajectories have been on the up. The trajectories for spending and for police numbers are on the up, and PCSOs have been introduced. Of course, one can pull out selective areas, so I was careful to note the period quoted for the rise in recorded crime in Manchester. Overall trends are the other way around, however. Trends go up and down, up and down, and we will see what has happened to crime statistics nationally when they are published on Thursday.
I do take two points, however, so as not to deeply offend anyone. The trajectory is rightly down both nationally and locally, but I accept the point made by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, about people’s perceptions of albeit low-level crime. If those elements of crime are high or remain stubbornly at levels that we cannot shift despite what we do with antisocial behaviour, and the broad perception is that that domain is troublesome to people, then that is troublesome to me as the Police Minister. However, that does not equate with the absolute doom and gloom cast by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, from which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and my hon. Friend drew back.
It is worth repeating that Greater Manchester is very well served by its police force, which has come on in leaps and bounds in the past 10 years. The police there have been hugely innovative in some areas, although by their own lights they would say that there is some way to go in some areas. I will not and cannot accept the
notion that the time for reviewing, speculating on and trying to reassess and recalibrate how our police forces work is suddenly over and that despite the efficiencies that have been gained in recent years, there is no more to be squeezed out of the lemon.
In order to respond to communities, policing has to be dynamic and constantly reinventing itself. I take issue with the notion of police work force modernisation, because it rather implies that there is currently stasis in those work forces, which is far from the case. They constantly innovate, re-energise, recalibrate, refocus, restructure and rebalance all elements of the police family. That must prevail if we are to deliver the policing that we want in each of our communities, including Greater Manchester. It is rather simplistic to draw a line and say, “Well, we can’t get any more efficiencies out of anything; we can’t look again at how we do what we do in each of our component parts.” That attitude is almost the politics of despair.
None of that is to say that hon. Members’ specific comments about Manchester were not well made and of some concern. I thought it most generous of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington to say that the budget deficit for the next year is less of a problem. That is because, as my hon. Friend pointed out to him, there is not one.
I move to the general points that were made about the comprehensive spending review, on which we are starting to make decisions. I must say in all candour that the wider concerns for forces and authorities up and down the country are about 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. There are a lot of discussions to be had and a lot of policy development to be done—across parties, I hope, and certainly up and down the country—about how to deal with policing in that next round once we know the broader parameters. The notion of moving to a three-year deal instead of a two-year deal must be right for Manchester and elsewhere. As someone said, that would take the kinks out so that people would be able to plan broadly, at least, and to know what the various scenarios are.
However, one cannot accept a three-year plan for Manchester without accepting that when we divide up the national cake, some elements will have to be taken out of that process. There will have to be a raw redistribution through the formula and then adjustments precisely to give forces some degree of certainty. Money has not been withdrawn from Manchester; it has been redistributed to other forces. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs got a bit of the Manchester money because Surrey happened to be a net recipient rather than contributor—[Hon. Members: “Sussex.”] I do apologise; of course, the hon. Gentleman is from Sussex. Anyway, he has more money than Surrey, so there we are.
Interestingly, I suppose, the Liberal Democrat Members’ near neighbour—not that near because Lancashire is in between—in Cumbria will be a huge recipient rather than a contributor. I can go through the list, but it will simply show up where the odd Liberal MPs are. Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, which is pretty well a redoubt for Liberal Democrats, benefit, as do Dorset, Durham, Lancashire, Norfolk,
North Yorkshire, Sussex—they have the odd one down there; they have to be very odd down there, the Sussex Liberal Democrats—West Mercia, Northumbria, the GLA area and others. There has to be a sense of equity in the equation. I do not accept the premise that in that national picture with that national resource the GMP should somehow be treated differently from all other forces. There has to be that equity, not least to get some notion of planning and contingency into the equation.
Mark Hunter: I sense that the Minister might well be coming towards the end of his remarks. Before he does, will he address the specific concern about neighbourhood policing? Does he agree that it is right that every local government ward in London should have a dedicated police team of six officers whereas Greater Manchester and other areas have nothing like that amount?
Mr. McNulty: I do not say that it is right or wrong. I am a happy beneficiary of it, but I make the simple point as a London MP and as a policing Minister that London has paid for it over successive police precepts over successive years, not least because London has the benefit under the capping regime of two or three precepts to play with for transport and other elements, too. London decided through those involved in its political process—the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan police authority, the Greater London authority and the commissioner—that it wanted that model of neighbourhood policing. They went to the electorate and said, “If you want this, it will cost this much. Do you fancy it?” and London overwhelmingly said yes. This is not about whether I think as policing Minister that it is right or wrong, but as a constituency MP and in the context of the operational decisions made by the commissioner in conjunction with the Mayor, I think that it is right for London.
Nick Herbert: Will the Minister confirm that when the flexibilities were introduced in relation to police community support officers, two thirds of the money returned to the forces was returned to the Met and only a third to provincial forces and that those were central funds?
Mr. McNulty: Slightly less than that, in the sense that it was 20 out of 35 rather than 20 out of 30—so that would be about 63 per cent. However, at least part of the additional funding that went above and beyond the price of 16,000 PCSOs was about consolidating the success of the PCSOs who are already there. There is no point in simply doling out that additional money if there has already been discussion in some areas—London included—about the sustainability of those who are already in place. That was part of the logic behind the formula.
I take on board the points that have been made and defend the right of every individual MP to lobby about the specific police grant for their area. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs alluded to the fact that an will be opportunity afforded for debate again, if hon. Members listen carefully to the Leader of the House when he makes business statements, when the time comes in the appropriate order for the police grant report. That is potentially due soon. If I was being unkind, I would say that rather than the rather
stilted and juvenile introduction made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington—although the debate collectively got far better—it is right that there should be a substantive local and national debate on the nature of policing, how to fund it and on the balance between the assorted elements. I want that debate—this is becoming more characteristic—to be held on a cross-party basis so we can reach a consensus on how to achieve what we need for our communities.
One final point. I have been to see neighbourhood policing three or four times as it is slowly implemented in Greater Manchester. I would be interested to understand why my recognition of it from those visits is closer to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport than that of other hon. Members, although I take the point that antisocial behaviour and the other elements are not, sadly, the domain only of deprived areas. Antisocial behaviour is a blight that affects many of our areas, affluent and less affluent, and policing in response to that needs to be tailored to reflect those differences.
Royal Warrants of Appointment
12.30 pm
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): It is a great delight to have this debate, and I am grateful to the Clerks of the House for providing me with robust advice on how to frame the issue. At one point, their robust advice was that I could not have the debate, but I have now been allowed to do so, so it is a great delight to be here. It is also a great delight to be here because I think, although some historian may correct me, that this is the first time that the House of Commons has debated the royal warrant system since 1628. Of course, the Commons did not have a very warm relationship with the royal family in 1628.
The royal warrant system is very old. The first King of England to issue a warrant of appointment for people to provide him with services was Henry II, who granted one to the Weavers Company in 1155. Several other companies were given warrants over the succeeding decade and a half, but not until 1300 was the splendidly named Reginald de Thunderley made Purveyor of Cloths to the Great Wardrobe for Edward I’s second wife, Queen Margaret. He provided 14 kinds of striped cloth for her valets.
Many senior and important figures in Britain’s history have held royal warrants of appointment. William Caxton was appointed printer to Henry VII in 1476. The poets laureate and the Masters of the Queen’s Music have also come under the royal warrant system of appointment historically. Henry VIII appointed Thomas Hewytt, the first person to supply food to the royal household under a royal warrant. He was to supply “Swannes and Cranes” and “all kinds of Wildfoule”. When Charles II was restored, he set about doling out royal warrants fairly assiduously and had given them to a wide range of people by 1684, including a sword cutter and a golf-club maker.
Of course, the system has changed dramatically over the years. In the earlier period of Britain’s, and particularly England’s, history, a major distinction was drawn between tradesmen and purveyors: tradesmen were those who provided things for the royal household above stairs and were ruled by the writ of the Lord Chamberlain; purveyors were those who provided things to the royal household below stairs, and were organised by the Lord Steward, who chaired the Board of Green Cloth. Those who dislike the Government for having dismantled some of their most ancient elements might find it is interesting to note that the Board of Green Cloth existed up until the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, when it still had a role in licensing the sale and provision of alcohol in royal palaces.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |