POLICE MANPOWER

HC Deb 30 January 1968 vol 757 cc1190-211

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

As a Member for a Cheshire constituency, I listened with interest to the whole debate on foot-and-mouth disease, but I felt unable to participate because I wanted to raise the subject of police manpower. Having heard the reply of the Minister of Agriculture and as one whose constituency is concerned about foot-and-mouth, I hope that the reply which I have from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about police manpower will be more acceptable.

The Supplementary Estimate for the police totals about £10 million and is not large compared with some other Estimates which we are considering tonight, but it is certainly important. The point to make at the outset is that nine-tenths of it come under the heading of grants to police authorities, due largely to increased police strength and increased manpower, and the majority of the rest, about £900,000, is related to unit beat policing, and those are the two matters which I should like to consider.

I think that I am right—and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would tell me—in saying that the increase this year is about 4,000 men, and presumably that is the main basis for the Supplementary Estimate. I welcome that increase. It was probably expected, because at the beginning of the year we had a report on manpower from the Police Advisory Board, and it would have been sad indeed if, during the year following the publication of that report, there had been no increase in manpower.

But that does not tell the whole story, because that figure must be put into perspective and set against the background of the present deficiency in police manpower and particularly in the context of the fact that during the rest of the financial year there will be the new restrictions on police recruiting which were announced by the Home Secretary following the Prime Minister's statement earlier in the year. That statement and those restrictions do not come into force at the beginning of the next financial year—and I should be ruled out of order for mentioning them if they did—but are related to a period commencing 1st January, this year, and therefore to the period to which the Supplementary Estimates relate.

I turn first to the general position of police manpower. I am sure that one can do no better than quote what is one of the first statements in the Report of the Advisory Body on Police Manpower, which says: It is well known that the Police Service in England and Wales has for years suffered a chronic shortage of police. In the year to which that relates, the deficiency was in the region of 15,000 men. During 1966, the establishments were reviewed and, on the whole, reviewed upwards. Whereas there was a slight net increase in strength of some 1,600 in 1966, and whereas there has been a considerable increase in the year under review, nevertheless my assessment of the present deficiency is that it is something in the region of between 13,000 and 14,000.

That deficiency is not spread evenly. It is probably true to say that more than a third of it relates entirely to the Metropolitan area, where I believe that the police force is some 5,000 under strength. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how much of the increase in this Estimate which has occurred in the last 12 months relates to the Metropolitan area. I have a feeling that it is in the nature of a fifth of the total sum.

The position remains that, despite the increase which has occurred, our police forces are still desperately short of staff. If one takes the Metropolitan area, according to the Report published last year, the number of police in the area rose by some 2,500 in the last 10 years, bringing the total up to a little under 20,000. In that same 10-year period, crime within the Metropolitan area went up by 160 per cent., and the detection rate dropped to just over 20 per cent.

Taking the figures outside London, at a time when crime has increased by 150 per cent. in ten years, when road traffic has increased by over 100 per cent., still there are 32 city and police forces in existence, according to the 1966 figures—some may have been amalgamated by now—which were between 10 and 20 per cent. deficient in strength as against establishment.

The police are, and always have been, in the forefront of the fight against crime. It has been said many times that the likelihood of detection is the greatest deterrent to crime. To an extent, it is a cliché to repeat that statement. However, the likelihood of detection depends, to a large extent, on the number of policemen available for the fight against crime. It is a fight which is undertaken on behalf of society, and one which the police must win, in the interests of everyone. Over recent years, there have been outbreaks of violent crime, where people have been prepared to wage war against society. It is essential that society should be seen to win the war. The fundamental duty of the State is to maintain law and order within the country and see that there are adequate police for that purpose.

I turn from the general deficiency in our police forces to the other half of the argument which I wish to raise. In view of what I have said, any reduction in the number of police or in the rate of expansion envisaged to be likely is a false economy. Whatever the cost may be of providing adequate police forces, it is nothing compared with the cost of crime, both in the monetary sense and in the sense of the misery that it causes. Yet these figures cover over the fact that the expansion of the police force is now being deliberately restricted.

We have had two circulars sent out by the Home Office which are relevant to these estimates. They show that as from 1st January this year the Home Office intend that the ceiling of the net increase in the police over a period of some 15 months should be limited to a maximum of 1,200 people. It means that the Government, as a matter of policy, have decided to accept what is really a permanently understaffed police force.

If one looks at how they propose to control the increment, one finds that in those forces which are no less than 10 per cent. deficient, no increase is to be allowed; that in those which are between 10 and 20 per cent. deficient in strength, only an increase equivalent to 1 per cent. of their establishment is to be allowed; and that in those over 20 per cent. deficient, only an increase of 2 per cent. in their establishment. The position is that the Government seem to have said that in large areas of this country a deficiency in the police of something between 15 to 20 per cent. under the required strength is to be accepted.

At the same time—this comes within tile same estimates, since we are dealing, with general police expenditure—they make the point that there is to be no increase in either civilians or additional traffic wardens to take over part of the duties of the police.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I would like to relate those figures in concrete terms to the position in the Metropolitan area of London where the police force is sadly understaffed. In 1967 I understand there was a most welcome increase in the Metropolitan Police Force of some 800 in number. If that rate of increase had been continued throughout the next 15 months, on that basis one could have assumed something in the region of 1,000 net additional men in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force, still nowhere bringing it up to its establishment strength, but a very necessary and successful increase.

Since it is possible that the increase which has occurred has just removed the Metropolitan police from being over 20 per cent. deficient in numbers to being a shade of a percentage under 20 pe7 cent. deficient in numbers, it means that under the proposals of the Government any increase in the Metropolitan police would of necessity be limited to a total number of 250.

The next point I want to make is about the effect of taking a ceiling of this kind This is an important point and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the force of it. It has been put to me that one has had over the last 18 months or so an extremely good period of recruitment into the police force, which has been gaining momentum. Maybe due to the economic policies which have occurred and the effect on employment in this country there has been quite a surge of demand of people coming into the police force. If we turn that tap off by deliberately ceasing to encourage the expansion, it will be very difficult to recover again when we decide to set out to increase the police force.

At a time when, due to the Government's economic policies—and I am not commenting on them but making this as a statement of fact—there is likely to be a considerable contraction in the size of the Armed Forces, it is unfortunate that it has been decided to reduce recruitment to the police force, because one would have thought that personnel from the Armed Forces would be suitable for such recruitment. The Police Federation takes the view that there are many men with excellent capabilities who may be lost for all time because of this provision.

Accepting the Government's policy, may I ask whether the Government consulted the Police Advisory Board about this restriction on recruitment, and the method by which it is to be achieved? This Board was specifically set up to advise the Home Secretary on police matters. It recently reported on manpower. It contains representatives of the county councils, of the A.M.C., of the chief constables, of the superintendents, and of the Police Federation. Secondly, did the Government seek any advice from the various professional police bodies about the best way of imposing these restrictions on recruitment? Because of this restriction on recruitment, even if the target is reached it will be the lowest increase in the police force in all but one year during the last six.

I believe that the big strides which have been made in expanding the police force in recent years are in jeopardy. It is a question of better recruiting, of less wastage, and of relieving the police of duties that can be performed by others. To a large extent, these three matters are tied together. The wastage is caused by the extra long hours and the conditions under which the police have to work. The wastage will cease only if we can increase the overall number of policemen. I welcome, as I am sure the Under-Secretary of State does, the fact that much has been done to stop the police doing jobs such as court usher, which was never a suitable job for an active policeman, but I regret that the Government are not prepared to spend more money on employing additional civilians in the police force, as has happened over recent months.

I am glad that the unit beat police system has apparently escaped the axe. How many additional radios have been provided? Are we getting near the figure of 12,000 which the Government said was the likely figure at the end of this accounting period? How many additional cars have been provided?

I conclude by quoting figures which I believe are significant. On two consecutive days last week-end there were reports by the Chief Constable of Manchester about the crime rate there over the previous 12 months, and by the acting Chief Constable of Lancashire on the crime rate in the county. The Manchester figures showed an increase of 11.2 per cent. The Lancashire County figures showed a decrease of 11 per cent. over the equivalent period. The Acting Chief Constable put it down to a large degree to the success of the unit beat police system, and the rise in morale which it occasioned throughout the police force. I welcome the fact that police numbers have increased in the last twelve months, but I greatly regret that, one of the first actions of the new Home Secretary, who was for many years advisor to the Police Federation, should have been to limit the expansion which is so badly needed.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) on this subject. At a time when the functions of the State increase so greatly into welfare, economics, education and all the numerous matters—one does not criticise this—in which the State is nowadays active, it is easy to forget that, basically, to ensure the happiness and wellbeing of its inhabitants, the State has two prime duties: first, to defend the country from threats without and to see that its defences are sound, and, second, to maintain the Queen's peace within and to see that law and order is kept and the Queen's subjects can go about their daily lives free from the threat which a well-established and active criminal community can constitute to the ordinary peaceful citizen.

One of the striking and deplorable things about the cuts recently announced by the Government is that they have fallen more than anywhere on defence from without and now, as we have learned from my hon. Friend, on security from crime within. For the first time, in the last two years, the police have seemed by enormous effort to be gaining slightly the upper hand in the war against crime, and it would be an absolute disaster if they were to be attacked now in their numbers or morale. An attack in their numbers is an attack also in their morale —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting on to the next series of Estimates. He can deal only with those at present before the House, which do not encompass the cuts announced in the House last week.

Mr. Grieve

I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to get back on to the straight and narrow path from which I have strayed.

The position is illustrated by some figures given tonight in the Evening Standard, which show the appalling degree and strength of crime in the London area. Last year nearly £20 million was stolen by criminals in the London area, in the form of cash or property. It amounted to £19,952,274, of which only £1,949,312 was recovered. That is a ridiculously small amount and there can be no doubt that, if the police were better manned, they would have a far better chance of recovering property taken in this way.

Another factor which appears in that newspaper is that over one murder a week was committed in London in 1967. These are compelling figures and show the necessity for the police to be manned to the limit of the establishment.

The figures for the whole country show the same trend. Only 24.3 per cent. of indictable offences committed in 1967 were cleared up. That is a degree better than the previous year, when 22.3 per cent. were cleared up. There has been a slight improvement, therefore, in the war which the police are fighting on our behalf against crime.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Tavene)

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the figures for the country as a whole. I believe that he was just quoting the figures for London.

Mr. Grieve

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was quoting the London figures. The country-wide figures are somewhat greater; 40.2 per cent. of these cases were cleared up in 1966, less than 50 per cent. of the total, while in London it was less than a quarter of the total.

This is no criticism of the police, who have been greatly handicapped over the years in recruitment and the resources that have been available to them. One of the duties of the Government—and, in so far as it is possible, of the legislature as a whole—is to see that the police are properly manned and up to strength in their war against crime. These figures show the gravity of the situation.

I have quoted the figures for last year from the Evening Standard of property recovered. In 1966, more than £21 million worth of property was stolen and less than £4 million worth was recovered —and, of that, £1½ million was accounted for in respect of pictures from the Dulwich Art Gallery, which puts a rather artificial level on the extent of the property recovered. This is, therefore, not a time when recruitment for the Police Force should be in any way kept down or artificially reduced.

In 1966 the police were greatly under strength. Figures for the Metropolitan area have already been quoted. I have from the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for 1966 the figures for the whole country showing various deficiencies in strength; less than 2 per cent. in two county forces and two borough forces, between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. in six county forces and nine city and borough forces, between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. in 14 county forces and 15 city and borough forces, between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. in 17 county forces and 32 city and borough forces, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. in five county forces and four city and borough forces, between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. in one county force and three city and borough forces and more than 30 per cent. in no less than four county forces and two city and borough forces.

These figures speak for themselves more eloquently than any amount of speech making. They show that the Police Force in Britain in 1966 was grievously under strength and that a great effort is required to bring it up to strength.

The problem is not only an immediate one of bringing the police forces up to strength to combat the crime wave as it exists at present to a degree which is inimical to the maintenance of the Queen's peace. It is also vitally important for the future because the recruit of today is the detective inspector of the day after tomorrow. Unless recruitment for the police forces continues at a proper level, not only shall we not have the numbers necessary today to pursue the criminals, but the day after tomorrow and for many years to come we shall suffer the results of not having had recruits in 1968–69 who will become the senior officers in five, 10 or 15 years' time.

An attack on the numbers of the police force at a time when it is vitally necessary that they should be kept up is an attack not only on their numbers but on their morale. The police as much as any of the Armed Forces depend for their success, in the constant war they are having to wage against crime, on morale. Nothing succeeds in a force more than success, success properly and well earned. If the numbers are to be cut down and they are treated as one of the necessary social organisations and institutions which has to suffer every time the Government is in economic difficulty, they will consider that they are not receiving the treatment necessary to them as the force which protects the lives, liberties and property of all citizens.

Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark)

I have been interested in the hon. Member's criticism that we should not cut defence spending. If that had been so and cuts were not made, they would have to fall more heavily on the sector of services in this country. Does not the hon. Member think that it inconsistent to call for general economy and yet for particular expenditure? During the night he and his colleagues will be calling for more expenditure. How do they think economies can be made?

Mr. Grieve

I have a feeling that if I sought to answer the hon. Member Mr. Speaker would call me to order. It is in defence outside and keeping law and order within the country that we ought last, not first, to look for economies.

9.17 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)

When the House is discussing Supplementary Estimates it is usual to quiz the Government about whether they are spending too much money, but this evening I ask the Minister to look at the other side of this coin and to reassure the House that police equipment is not being skimped in any way for financial reasons.

Every hon. Member who has spoken this evening and everyone who speaks about the police points out what a difficult job they have in combating organised and sophisticated criminals. We do not want to see the policeman, as it were, on a red bicycle chasing a bandit in an E-type Jaguar. The police must have all the equipment they need. In my constituency there is located the headquarters of the reorganised Hampshire and Isle of Wight police. Reorganisation of this type, from which we all hope for great results, is pointless unless the men are provided with all the gear they need.

Turning to manpower, I notice that there is in the Supplementary Estimates a heading for increased rates of pay and additional staff. Can the Minister assure the House that the pay, allowances and pensions at the end of service are adequate to recruit, not only the numbers required for the police force—and still required—but also men of the high calibre needed for a modern police force?

What special arrangements are being made for additional numbers of police now that the T.A.V.R. III is to be reduced and civil defence put into cold storage? Mr. Speaker would soon rule me out of order if I were to seek to explain, even for one moment, how much I disagree with these decisions on the T.A.V.R. III and civil defence. One of the consequences which the Government will have to face is that in any serious emergency, either in peace or in war, a greater number of police will be required to fill the gap left by these economies.

Finally, are any special arrangements being made for men demobilised from the Armed Forces to be accepted into the police force under conditions which will guarantee some preservation of their seniority as regards pay and conditions?

9.20 p.m.

Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

I have always found most Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates in particular, singularly uninformative about the amounts which Parliament is asked to authorise. These are no exception. I regard it as the first duty of the Government to have at heart the interests of law and order. Any economy made in pursuing that duty should normally be regarded as a false economy. When this document was published on 30th November last, I was delighted to learn that police forces were to have extra provision made for them which, in the interests of law and order, in view of the crime wave, and in view of the increased responsibilities placed upon the police, it is only right should be made.

Under Class III, Vote 5, increases in expenditure in respect of the ordinary provisions with regard to the police are to be no less than £5,330,010. Page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates makes it clear that special attention is to be given to unit beat policing. An extra sum of £330,010 is to be provided for the purchase of cars on behalf of police authorities. This amount, felicitously enough, comes under Subhead Z, so these cars can be referred to in the appropriate manner.

Naturally enough, I wondered what was to happen to this Supplementary Estimate, of which so little detail had been given, when it was announced that certain cuts were to be made. We learned from the somewhat cryptic description of the cuts to be made in Home Office Estimates that they were to be phased over the next two financial years. Therefore, it would not be in order for us to discuss those cuts in isolation.

However, we have the advantage of being able to obtain from the Library the Home Office circulars which explain, up to a point—and, let us be fair, in considerable detail—Home Office expenditure now and in the future. Therefore, fortunately we are able to bring within the rules of order—I say this with respect to the Chair—a discussion about future cuts in manpower, because the Home Office circular dated 18th January makes it clear that these cuts are to operate from 1st January of this year and, therefore, come within the period covered by the Supplementary Estimates.

I am alarmed to find this statement in paragraph 4 of the Home Office circular dated 18th January. It is the type of explanation of a Supplementary Estimate that one looks for, however alarmed one is when one finds it there. Paragraph 4 says, under the heading "Police Officers": The aim is that the aggregate strength of police officers throughout England and Wales in the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st March, 1969 should increase by not more than 1,200. Then we were told a little about how it was to be done. It says: In allocating this increase between individual forces, it seems sensible that the forces which are substantially below strength should be permitted to grow at a faster rate than those whose strengths are nearer their establishments". In the next circular, only four days later, we had an explanation of that statement. But the explanation is extraordinary, because we are told: Plans for expenditure on police manpower during the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, are based on the assumption that forces with a strength deficiency, of men and women combined, of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. assessed on the figures reported as at 1st January, 1968, will not increase then strength over this period by more than 1 per cent. of their authorised establishment; those; with a deficiency of over 20 per cent. by not more than 2 per cent. I should be glad to be corrected by the Under-Secretary of State if I am wrong, but that seems to mean that it will be all right if strengths remain respectively 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. below authorised establishment in extreme cases. One hopes that the extreme cases will not be characteristic, but for that to be achieved as a result of the Home Office's obligation to make a contribution to the economies which the Government must make is most alarming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, the first duty of a Government is to preserve law and order. If police strengths are already acknowledged to be insufficient, it is false economy not to increase them, and it is not an economy which should be accepted. It may be that ultimately the result dill be for police forces to be cut.

I was a little saddens [...] to find, in the methods to be employ [...] what is to happen to police cadets. If young men aged between 17 and 20 [...]cide to devote those very important formative years to training for what they hope will be their life's work, only to find that even if they pass the test they will not enter the police forces to which they are accredited, that is a shattering thing for them and a deplorable waste of found talent. We see what is to happen in a simple sentence in the circular of 18th January, which says: All forces should continue to attest cadets when they reach the qualifying age, but they must be accommodated within the foregoing arrangements. In other words, if cadets are found suitable but cannot be retained within the force because of the economies which are to be imposed, they shall be rejected.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help me. I gather that the economies he is talking about are for the year 1968–69 and not in these Supplementary Estimates.

Sir D. Renton

I can help you, Mr. Speaker. In the circular mentioned, the period starts with 1st January, 1968, and, therefore, one must regard the circular as an explanation of the way in which the Supplementary Estimates will work out in practice. I have done my best to keep in order and sincerely believe that, having given this explanation, I may well be found to be. I have made the point. I hope for an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Home Office will have second thoughts about the police cadets and that those already at any rate attested and qualified will not be kept in any single case from becoming members of the police forces concerned.

There is mention in the circulars of the possibility of saving police manpower by the greater use of traffic wardens. Here I have a confession to make. When I was occupying the hon. and learned Gentleman's post at the Home Office and assisted in the passage of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Act, 1960, which introduced traffic wardens, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Public Building and Works, I gave an undertaking that the duties of traffic wardens would not be extended beyond those which were announced at the time as being the duties for which they were intended—namely, in relation to traffic parking meters, to car parks and to static duties generally.

I know that already there has been some use of traffic wardens on other duties and I do not complain of that, although it may well appear to have been a breach of the undertaking I gave. But when we find the sort of thing that there is in these circulars about the extended use of traffic wardens to save police manpower, we are entitled to be told what the new policy is to be and quite specifically that it can be examined in relation to the undertakings given by a previous Government.

There is so much that one could say and one knows that one would be in order in continuing for some time, but I conclude by saying that I have reason to appreciate the co-operation on police matters which the Home Secretary gave when advising the Police Federation some years ago. I realise that it must have been galling for him to have to authorise the circulars which were issued in his name, and I only hope that the decisions which have been taken are not final and that the pleas made by my hon. Friends may yet be heeded.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has said, although most of the cuts recently announced come in the coming financial year 1968–69, the Estimate we are discussing covers the 1967–68 period and the disclosures which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) have made relate to the present year as well as to the following year. I think this appalling. We were given no inkling of this in the Prime Minister's statement. The fact that the benches opposite are totally vacant shows that hon. Members opposite have not a clue that this is what the Home Secretary has agreed to do.

These figures show that at long last the recruitment of the police, which for so long has been dragging behind the needs of the country in the face of an almost unprecedented crime wave in living memory, had just reached the point where it was really encouraging. I am told that the figure for 1967 was 3,615 —the only time that it has risen above 3,000. Now, largely owing to other cuts, which it would not be in order to discuss, the Home Secretary has an opportunity to recruit into the police force as of now, in this financial year, candidates suitable in age, health, mental and physical characteristics and accustomed to discipline. What does he do? He throws it away. Not only does he reject the opportunity, but he makes it absolutely clear that he is killing, nipping in the bud, the hopes of an increased police force which the figures I have quoted led us to believe might be possible.

I dare say not one single Member opposite realises what he has done. I doubt whether the public know either. Anyone in this country who thought that we had too many policemen would deserve to have his head examined. Yet that is the proposition to which, in substance, the Home Secretary, concealed behind this Estimate, is committing himself. He is starting from January in the current financial year, restricting the income over a period of time to 1,200 when all the indications were that we had every reason to hope that for the present period it would be fully 4,000.

I hardly believed this when I heard it, and I put down a Question for Written Answer so as to confirm it. He said. just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire has disclosed, that the figure in the period concerned, beginning 1st January, was 1,200. He tries to cover that up by talking about unit beats, the use of "Z" cars and establishments. We know perfectly well about all these aids, which no one welcomes more than we on this side of the House.

He has not got enough policemen. Now, when for the first time for a number of years he has the opportunity of recruiting more—an unparalleled opportunity disclosed both by the recent figures and the availability of manpower as a result of the cuts—he throws it away with both hands. This is the first act of the Home Secretary who was once the adviser to the police.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

Disgraceful.

Mr. Hogg

Disgraceful is not too strong a word. I am shocked and appalled beyond measure at what the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to do. Even now I would like to think that he had it in him to have the decision reversed. I cannot understand why this appalling decision was not contained in the Prime Minister's statement. I can only suppose that it was because the Government knew how it would be received by the public.

I cannot conceive how the Home Secretary allowed himself to be bull-dozed into this extraordinary position. I can only put it down either to exhaustion, as a result of his experiences as Chancellor of the Exchequer, or alternatively total inexperience as Home Secretary. I can assure him that if he goes on like this, he has made a very bad beginning and we shall give him absolute stick until he improves.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne)

On the whole members opposite spoke in sorrow rather than in anger until the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke. I am glad the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has raised this subject. It is a matter of great importance. I agree with everything he said about the important rôle the police play, and I agree with the view that detection by the police is the most important single deterrent in the penal field.

I hope in the course of my answer to the various speeches that I shall cover most of the points. It is important for the House to look at it against the whole background, and one must look at the police manpower position as it has changed over the last ten years or so. Police manpower in 1956 was 68,000, and since then the position has fundamentally improved to the extent that by the end of 1967 the figure was 89,597, an average increase of 1,800 police a year.

Police manpower comes to something like 65 per cent. of total police expendi- ture. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone referred to the increase during 1967, which he understated. For the full year it was 4,124, 64 per cent. higher than the previous year when the increase was 2,500.

Regarding the Metropolitan police, again the hon. Member for Runcorn was right. The increase last year was 804 compared with 500 in the previous year. It is important for the House to realise that the civilian side of the service has increased dramatically as well. In 1956 it was 12,400. By the end of 1967 it was 28,600, an annual rise in this case of 1,473. In recent years the rise has become progressively steeper—2,000 in 1965; just under 3,100 in 1966 and 4.188 in 1967.

My right hon. Friend has asked me to make it clear that it is only with the greatest reluctance that he has decided to seek restraint in the increase of police strength in the civilian part to support the police. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone suggested that there had been a cut back. Nothing of the kind is true. There is not a cut back in the police, and Press reports are totally misleading. The right hon. and learned Member suggested that in the Home Office Circular we sought to hide the fact that only 1,200 extra recruits were to be sought in the next financial year. It was stated quite specifically that the aim was that the aggregate strength of police officers for England and Wales in the period could increase by not more than 1,200. There was no cover up of any kind.

Mr. Hogg

What I said, and what I hope I made plain, was that the purpose of tucking it away in the circular instead of putting it plainly and honestly in the Prime Minister's statement was to conceal it. There was no suggestion that the circular itself was a concealment. May I, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted me again, also point out that what I said was that the right hon. Gentleman was throwing away his opportunity of recruiting more police and that what was cut back was the rate of recruitment and not the net number of police.

Mr. Taverne

I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather overstated his case. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that he alleged that under cover of the Home Office circular we tried to hide the figure of 1,200 which was untrue, and I am glad he has not repeated it. The increase in numbers which has taken place has led to an increase in public expenditure.

The figures of expenditure are very considerable. Expenditure on the police service for England and Wales has risen from £160 million in 1963-64 to £220 million in 1966–67—a rise of £60 million in four years. To put it another way, the increase in expenditure in 1966–67 was more than one-third as much again as in the four years before. We were faced with Estimates which suggested that in the coming year it would have risen to just on £257 million—more than 10 per cent. higher than in the current year.

Hon. Members opposite who are concerned about the rise of public expenditure must take account of the fact that police expenditure was rising very sharply. If one was considering the need to cut back public expenditure in general, it was impossible to exempt the police. If one expected the local authorities to limit the amount which they were to spend in a certain period, one could not possible impose on them an ever-increasing expenditure on the police force.

Sir D. Renton

When the population is increasing, and when the crime wave has continued to mount, at any rate until very recently—for all we know it may still be mounting—and when Parliament continues to increase the burden on the police by legislation, surely it is only right that police manpower should go on increasing, which inevitably means an increase in police expenditure.

Mr. Taverne

What I was pointing out was that the increase in expenditure was very considerable indeed and that one must have regard to the rôle of the police in the increasing expenditure if one is considering the overall picture and one must not impose on local authorities duties to cut back further in other directions without limiting the increase in the police service.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have allowed the Minister to answer what I suspect was out of order. He must come to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Tavene

As part of the general programme, one had to ask for restraint on the increase in manpower. The financial objectives could have been achieved in a number of ways. We could have stopped police recruiting and concentrated on increasing the number of civilians, but I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it would have been wrong to put the cuts in that field and that it was right to put the main emphasis of the increased expenditure on the police on increasing police strength and limiting more severely the increase in civilians.

The hon. Member for Runcorn asked whether the Police Advisory Board was consulted. It was impossible to consult the Board about the nature of these cuts because it was impossible to consult it about what was being decided in the Cabinet. The decisions had to be very rapidly announced, and time prevented consultation from taking place.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) asked about police cadets. I can give him a complete assurance on this point. Police cadets who are suitable will be taken on in the force, and even if this brings the total numbers of the force above the, as it were, permitted increase, this would still be allowed, although it might be that a further increase could not be made up from other sources of recruitment.

The intention is to increase the numbers in the forces in England and Wales by 1,200 up to 31st March, 1969. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked whether the inducements were sufficient for recruitment. On the basis of the recruitment figures in the past, the inducements have been sufficient. The problem which we have to face is not to recruit more but to limit the amount by which recruitment is increased.

Hon. Members have referred to the way in which this can be achieved. The hon. Member for Runcorn was right. If there is an overall limit in the increase of 1,200, it should be concentrated in those areas where the need is greatest. This has been done by dividing the forces into three categories—those with less than 10 per cent. deficiency on authorised establishment figures, in which case existing numbers will be maintained; those with a deficiency of between 10 and 20 per cent., where a 1 per cent. increase will be permitted on the authorised establishment strength; and those with a deficiency of more than 20 per cent., which will include the Metropolitan Police, where the increase will be 2 per cent. The present deficiency in the authorised establishment figure of the Metropolitan Police is about 23 per cent., so that force will be included.

Mr. Carlisle

My point about the Police Advisory Board was in relation to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. I accept that it would have been difficult to ask the Board for its advice when the matter was before the Cabinet, but was it consulted on the manner in which recruitment would be achieved? It seems to me that, while selective, it is extremely crudely selective. It could be better done.

Mr. Taverne

This is where the time aspect comes in. The hon. Member will realise that in many cases local authorities are already preparing their budgets. We needed proposals at once as to how recruitment was to be cut back, and it was not possible for this important matter to be considered at the next meeting of the Advisory Board.

We have already also advised police authorities that, except for applications already under consideration, changes in the various establishment figures must be deterred until further notice. There may, of course, be adjustment of ranks and poets within the existing establishment figures—but I must speak of establish-melt figures, since a great deal of play has been made over the deficiencies there.

We are seeking a more objective method of assessing force establishments. Force establishments are at present arrived at largely on the basis of mutual consultation between the chief constable and the relevant H.M. Inspector of Constabulary in the exercise of their professional judgment. The total of all the establishments determined by police authorities—and these are subject to the Secretary of State's approval—has been rising at a faster rate than the strength of the police force has been rising. One has, in some ways, the rather curious position that that there is this very large increase in the total police force—from some 68,000 over 10 years ago to just under 90,000 today—yet, on the basis of the various establishment figures, the deficiencies are greater than ever. What is needed, therefore, and what we realise is needed, is some objective method of assessing what the establishment figure should be.

One cannot say that the police situation is worse than it was 10 years ago when we now have more policemen than ever before, and when they are better equipped than ever before. Therefore, to some extent, the paper deficiencies—and I agree that there is certainly a real deficiency as well—which are so often referred to are in many respect misleading, particularly when a comparison is made with the past. This is not a P.A.B. figure arrived at on the basis I have described. The police working party agreed that there was a chronic deficiency of policemen, and I do not resile from that view in any way, but the figures are in many ways misleading.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Runcorn referred to the success of unit beat policing—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves manpower in order to deal with equipment, will he deal with what the position for recruitment into the police will be for men redundant from the Armed Forces?

Mr. Taverne

It will be exactly the same as it has been in the past. There is a slight age differential at the start. Otherwise, from whatever source people come into the force, they receive the emoluments and pay to which anyone entering the force is entitled. There is no special level for those recruited from the Armed Forces, except that someone joining over the age of 22 gets more, initially, than the person joining at 19 years of age.

It is obvious that unit beat policing has a very important effect in dealing with the general deficiency of policemen. It was estimated by the working party, which advocated this system, that if it were in existence where it could be in existence—and it has been pretty widely in existence—it would be the equivalent of an addition of 5 per cent., or some 5,000 men, to police strength. By the end of 1968, the overwhelming proportion of the population will be covered by unit beat policing.

Hon. Members asked about equipment and it is right that they should be reassured about equipment and the expenditure on motor cars and personal radio sets. There is no cutback in the planned increase of expenditure on equipment. It is expected that about 3,000 cars and 14,250 radios—not in all cases radios for unit beat schemes, but, overall, 14,250 personal radios—will be operational by the end of March, and the general equipment position stands where it stood before, certainly for unit beat policing.

Looking at the general picture, at the widespread introduction of unit beat policing and the saving in many respects and the more efficient use of manpower and the fact that we are not reducing the size of the police force, but cutting back on the very successful recruiting which has taken place, and remembering that the Estimates for the purposes of rate support grants were for two years increases in establishment of 3,000 each and remembering that even the cutback in overall numbers means an increase over the two-year period of some 5,200 men, it would be wrong for hon. Members to try to sustain the thesis that the police force is not being adequately maintained and adequately developed.

Sir D. Renton

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say something about traffic wardens?

Mr. Taverne

I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman details about traffic wardens. The restrictions on civilian employment will apply to traffic wardens as well, but it is envisaged that more traffic wardens will be recruited, although certainly not on the scale originally envisaged. There is no doubt that there will be greater difficulties with traffic as a result of the cutback. I surmise that, in a way, traffic will suffer from the cutback in the increase rather more than the fight against crime.

Mr. Speaker

I must remind the House that debates on this Second Reading are confined to the items in the Supplementary Estimates. We are getting a little wide.