| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
One of the paradoxes of the way in which modern policing has been constructed is that we have created a new class, or category, of police officer who has fewer powers than a sworn police officer but is out on the streets while sworn officers are in police stations tied up
in all the bureaucracy. If we are to have a debate about how we structure policing in future, we might like to reflect on that. We need to have a close look at the extent to which sworn officers are doing things in police stations that could be done by civilian officers.
A large number of police forces, including the Met, continue to have tasks run by police officers when they do not need to be. In my local force, Sussex, custody suites—an important part of police operations in which a great deal of bureaucracy is involved—are contracted out to a private supplier, and only the custody sergeant in the custody suite is a sworn officer. That has been a great success. There is no opposition to it in Sussex, and it is helping to deliver a better service and value for money. However, in many custody suites in the Met, as I saw for myself, those services are still run by sworn officers. Is it necessary to have sworn officers doing many of the tasks that they do? Another example is that of bail. A significant number of criminal suspects are on the run after skipping bail—more than 4,000 in London, including more than 500 serious and violent offenders. Could we employ the private sector, for instance, to pursue people who skip bail?
Important work force modernisation projects are going on throughout the country to assess the potential for driving up productivity of hiring civilian staff to do clerical work and, beyond that, case-building work that sworn officers do not need to do. The Treasury says that implementing such work force reform could lead to a 20 per cent. increase in productivity. It would not only lead to better value for money but release sworn officers on to the beat. That will become increasingly important, particularly against the background of tighter financial settlements for the police.
Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is making a valuable point. My experience locally is that because of constraints on back office resources, Putney police station opens for only three hours a day. It is pretty difficult for people to report crime when the police station is open at the very time when they are generally at work in London. That is possibly one of the reasons why recorded crime is going down.
Nick Herbert: Other important factors in relation to the accessibility of the police need to be addressed. Another result in the survey that we were given showed that fewer than half of Londoners feel informed about local policing.
One of the factors that is bound up with that is whether there should be a single non-emergency number in London to assist people in reporting crime, raising concerns and so on. That was a manifesto commitment by the Government. I have seen for myself the effectiveness of a non-emergency number in cities such as Chicago. The pilot schemes of the 101 number have been successful. They revealed an enormous latent demand, with members of the public taking advantage of a service that was not available before so that they could ring up and ask for help, whether from the police or from partners. I agree with the Minister that it will be important to ensure that partners work more closely with the police and deliver an holistic approach to reducing crime in their areas. However, the 101 number has effectively been shelved and will not be available in London. The Mayor of London has expressed concern about that. He wrote to the Home Secretary, saying:
“I am extremely concerned that the Home Office has decided to delay Waves 2 and 3 of the implementation of the”
101 number, “including London.”
“To be a truly world class city that hosts the Olympics in 2012, should the Capital not have the facilities that New York and Paris boast?”
“There has been an unprecedented enthusiasm across the political divide in London, and across the various London agencies to implement one of our major manifesto commitments. I am concerned that we will lose the goodwill, and therefore the opportunity, to introduce this valuable service to everyone who lives in, works in or visits London.”
The House should not underestimate the significance of what a single non-emergency number can achieve. It can not only dramatically improve the service that is available to the public but provide a way of ensuring that services are delivered seamlessly and that partners work more closely together.
Robert Neill: Does my hon. Friend accept that on this issue the Mayor of London is, for once, right? His concerns are reinforced by the cross-party views expressed in a report produced by the Commission on London Governance, which was set up jointly by the London assembly and the London boroughs. It heard compelling evidence of the value of a 101 number, and all parties on the Association of London Government, as it was then called, and the assembly supported it. Does he share my hope that the Minister will try to persuade his colleagues to reconsider this?
Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the cross-party cover with which he has provided me. Of course, I agree with him.
Before I leave the issue of work force reform, there are other significant ways in which the Met must play a leading role in ensuring value for money and the efficient use of taxpayers’ resources. There are concerns, which the commissioner raised, about the number of officers—nearly 2,000—on restricted duties in the Met. The commissioner correctly argues that that is potentially divisive. There is concern about the number of officers who take time off, which amounted to an average of almost three weeks last year, costing £36 million. More than 2,000 officers were off for more than 28 days. Some tough management decisions will be necessary to ensure that the additional resources that local and national taxpayers have provided to all police forces, including the Met, are deployed effectively.
Let me deal with the last key point about the way in which the Met’s performance will be important in future. It comes under the heading of accountability, which we have discussed. The Minister also raised it. The introduction of the post of Mayor and the role that he has played in helping secure additional officers and enhance the accountability of the Met locally have been beneficial. That system replaced arrangements whereby the Met effectively answered to the Home Secretary and it constitutes a significant advance. The model attracts Conservative Members to extending such arrangements to the rest of the country, where possible, or to finding some way of replicating it where there are no mayors.
However, I question the Metropolitan Police Authority’s claim that the Metropolitan police have become democratically accountable to Londoners for the first time. A body that is partly appointed cannot claim to be democratically accountable and the boroughs are losing out on the accountability to which they are entitled. In a debate in Committee on the matter and in his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made effective points. He said that the MPA collects a large share of the precept but some of its members are not elected.
The arrangements for the Met’s accountability are slightly over-complicated. They need to be tackled in future and that will probably mean transferring accountability to the elected Assembly, which can be more representative of Londoners. I am sure that methods can be found of including the expertise of unelected individuals, but those who argue that appointed individuals should fulfil functions on the MPA miss the point of what will happen in politics and structures in future. I believe that more authority will be vested in people who are elected and have legitimacy. The public no longer find it acceptable that people over whose position they have no influence should make many decisions about their lives.
Plainly, Londoners would like more borough accountability. That is clear from all the surveys that have been conducted. However, there will ultimately be a problem of determining who runs a police force, and formal mechanisms of accountability at borough level would therefore probably be a step too far. I agree that increased answerability of borough commanders and more effective partnership arrangements are the way forward.
At the most local level, more could be done to increase the police’s accountability. That could happen through, for example, more regular beat meetings that are open to the public and not held only with selected people. Such meetings should be more widely publicised. Conservative Members have discussed creating a right to policing so that people would know that they could meet their local police officers.
Providing information about crime levels in real time could also increase accountability. The Met now makes much more information about crime available on its website to local residents, but it is not in the same league as a city such as Los Angeles, where the police department publishes impressive maps that are available to the public and show crimes that have been committed in their neighbourhood in the past 24 hours. It is a powerful tool for the public, whereby they can express their concern about crime, know where it is happening and hold the police to account.
Much more must be done in future. The trend in developing safer neighbourhoods is the right one. I am happy to credit all concerned: the commissioner, the Mayor for partly enabling it to happen and, above all, the public, who wanted it for some time and funded it. However, it has not gone nearly far enough and there is something to learn from cities such as Chicago where such strategies have been in place for longer and trust has built up between the public and local police officers, who are known in their communities. That knowledge is especially important.
I have left myself little time to talk about a subject that I suspect other hon. Members will cover: the specific challenge of gangland crime. The report presented to the MPA today reveals that at least 171 gangs operate in the city. Some involve younger children and even young women. It is plainly a serious problem, which is not unique to London, but will require a specific combination of legislation, enforcement and social action. We make a mistake if we believe that only one of those components will tackle the problem.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the importance of counter-terrorism to policing in London. As the previous director general of the Security Service reminded us, the threat is at an unprecedented level and increasing. I pay tribute to the work of the Metropolitan police, as well as the security agencies, for helping to thwart various plots and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Metropolitan police are devoting a great deal of attention, energy and resources to confronting the threat. We and all Londoners support them in that.
However, when mistakes are made—they have been made—it is important that lessons are learned in a transparent and timely manner. There has been a delay in inquiries into the tragic shooting of de Menezes and the Government continue to stand in the way of an inquiry into the allegations about whether the Security Service knew what was happening before 7/7. It is important to discuss those issues. That does not undermine the Security Service or the police in any way. When possible, an open, transparent and informed debate about such matters would help build confidence and do much to arrest the sort of media attention that currently focuses on them.
Two years ago in his Dimbleby lecture, Sir Ian Blair called for a national debate on the future of policing. He asked what sort of police service we want in future. I welcome the way in which the Minister introduced the debate and engaged in that discussion. I welcome the fact that Sir Ronnie Flanagan will conduct a review about increasing local accountability and reducing bureaucracy, which is deeply problematic for delivering more effective policing in future. Conservative Members have contributed substantially to the debate with the publication of our 250-page policy report, which proposes constructive and sometimes bold solutions.
When we are perfectly properly and constructively critical of the performance of police forces and ask them to do more, it is important to acknowledge not only the challenges that they face but the contribution that officers make and the way in which they try to do their job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) revealed last week, having obtained information through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, well over 3,000 officers in the Met were assaulted last year in the performance of their duty. Nearly 14,000 were assaulted in the past five years and a significant number of officers in the City of London police were also assaulted. In all our debates about policing and crime levels in London, and when we express concerns on behalf of Londoners and the public that there should be value for money and that the fight against crime should be stepped up, we should not forget the work of police officers on our behalf. They remain the thin blue line between us and the breakdown of law and order.
1.59 pm
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab): May I begin by reflecting on the comments made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) about trust in statistics, because that issue lies at the heart of not only this debate, but most of those on crime and policing. I am not unsympathetic to the idea of more independent collection of statistics, but it is unarguably true—the hon. Gentleman’s comments demonstrated the fact—that, regardless of how the statistics are collected and by whom, how they are used nevertheless comes down to individuals, whether they be in the media or in politics. That is open to a great deal of varied interpretation and occasional quite blatant misinterpretation.
I noticed from the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the baseline year—the important issue for comparison of statistics—varied widely between 2000, which saw the introduction of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the election of the Mayor of London, and 1997, when 10 years of Labour Government commenced. In one case, the hon. Gentleman quoted figures based on 1991. Of course, that choice is very significant, because depending on which year we choose as the baseline year for studying historical trends, we find very different things in different circumstances.
The figures that the MPA uses for historical perspective give us the ability to track changes in crimes over one year, three years or five years. That will provide enormously varied results, reflecting what we all know—that there are patterns of crime that go up and then, we hope, come down as we bring resources to bear on them. For example, the figures for gun crime show that London saw a 21 per cent. reduction over the five years between 2002 and 2007, falling to an 8 per cent. reduction—still significant and important—if we take the two years between 2005 and 2007. The figures for robberies, which are a matter of enormous concern, show a significant increase, as all London Members will know, reflecting a rise in street robbery between 2004-05 and 2007. I hope, however, the increase of only 1 per cent. recorded over the course of last year, which reflected the fact that the police have been targeting that particular pattern of crime, will be a sustained trend.
If we want a mature and balanced debate about the resources required to tackle crime and about the factors that drive criminal behaviour, it is important to recognise that, whoever collects the statistics and however they are presented, the use of those statistics in debate must also be taken into account.
Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is making some valid points, but it brings me back to my previous intervention. If we took into account the decline in the reporting of muggings, we would see an underlying increase in them. My concern in all this is that it is difficult for police officers and inspectors to allocate resources when, because of the lack of reporting, they do not have a clear picture of what is happening. Does she agree that that is the fundamental problem with all these statistics?
Ms Buck:
I agree with that up to a point, but we also heard earlier great concerns expressed about the administrative burden on policing, which leads to the conclusion that we should be collecting less data, so we
need to understand that, too. I am all in favour of ensuring that we collect robust local statistics that allow us to gauge comparative performance over time and between regions. We need to discuss thoughtfully how to achieve that, but we also need to be responsible in the way that we report crime.
We heard in the opening statements earlier about the way in which we politicians tend to use stories about crime to support our campaigning information. That is a matter of great concern. We often hear at the highest level, often including in this place, some thoughtful reflections on crime trends, but it has to be said that, at the local level and in local elections, we often see literature put out by candidates that is, frankly, at odds with that more considered approach of local authorities and Governments. I am not going to make a party political point—though, frankly, I could—but we need to take a good hard look at ourselves, particularly when parties are in opposition, which is when the temptation to behave in that way is greatest. If we are to have a measured debate about what works, it is no good posing candidates in front of those yellow signs that the MPA use to signify a crime simply in order to make a powerful impact, particularly when that crime—serious and unpleasant though it may be—is wholly unrepresentative of what is happening in a community over time. If we do not do something about that, we will have a serious problem.
I believe that the figures for crime and policing in London clearly demonstrate one crucial thing—the relationship between increased resourcing for the police and reductions in crime. If we use the year 2000 as our baseline, there have been dramatic achievements of which we should be very proud. The MPA, the Mayor and all the individuals on the front line of policing deserve considerable credit. That does not mean that every single crime that occurs is not a serious and sometimes devastating event for the person who is a victim.
It is very difficult for politicians to find the narrative that manages to celebrate success on the one hand, while on the other not appearing to underplay the consequences of crime for the significant number of people—I fear that we will always have them—who find themselves victims of crime. The consequence of not finding the right narrative is, as we saw in the comments of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, a corrosive sense that nothing works. I have already said that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged some achievements, but his underlying thrust was that substantial resources have gone into policing in London without achieving anything. I am afraid that that is not true and that if such an impression is allowed to go unchallenged, it reinforces the public’s confidence that nothing that we or Governments of any complexion do can have any impact on the situation.
Mr. Khan: To be fair to the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), he said that utopia does exist in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago.
Ms Buck: I accept that, but the truth is that even in those cities, the challenge of the narrative remains—how to identify and celebrate success while acknowledging that many serious crime problems still remain and impact disproportionately on certain communities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |