HC Deb 27 July 1971 vol 822 cc244-53

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I wish to raise a matter affecting the Vote for the Metropolitan Police. I do not pretend that it is a matter of world-shaking importance, or that it affects all mankind, but it is a matter of great concern to parents, children and teachers in the Greater London area.

It has always been one of the glories of the House that it could turn at a moment's notice from a matter of major world concern to all mankind to a matter of limited but pressing importance to a limited number of people. The House will be much the loser if we ever lose that reputation of being able to turn quickly to something which, even if it is of limited scope, is something with which at least the House can deal promptly and quickly.

May I describe what used to happen and what until very recently has been happening in Greater London schools? It was a regular practice that teams of police officers, a sergeant or constable, or both, visited London schools and talked to the children about the problems of road safety, about what it was sensible to do if one wanted to keep alive in the rather alarming situation of the roads of Greater London.

The police officers gave sound practical advice on the immediate problem of road safety. But there was more to it than that. The fact that they were there, that they talked sense and that they gave good advice created a useful and friendly relationship between the young people and the police officers, the value of which went beyond the immediate problem of road safety.

In addition, there is a rather complex point which I, as someone who used to be a teacher, will do my best to explain. Those of us who have been teachers know very well that young people have an enormous respect for someone who they believe is doing a real job. When they are quite young, they are not sure whether teacher is doing a real job. When they are older and wiser, they understand that he is. Meanwhile, they have an enormous respect for someone who can arrest a criminal, drive a bus, repair a motor car, put the electric light in order or do any of the things which someone with a lack, not of wisdom but perhaps of sophistication which comes with age, believes is important.

The wise teacher does not resent this. He understands it. He understands that some of the young people under his control will have an enormous respect for the police officer. He will want to see the police officer acting in the school in cooperation with the teacher, helping the young people to understand how they should deal with the ugly problem of London's traffic, in particular, because if young people behave unwisely in some respects the penalty may be no more than that for a time they are unhappy and realise that they have done wrong, whereas if they behave unwisely in a traffic situation the penalty may be the irrevocable penalty of death. For this reason, the wise teacher was always glad to welcome the Metropolitan policeman if his presence would help young people to understand how they should handle traffic problems.

As I have said, this practice has operated for some time with good will and understanding between teacher, pupil and policeman. What is now proposed, as a result of the recent White Paper on road safety, is that after the end of this year's summer term the problem shall be, as it is put, left to the local authority. This has a very attractive sound. It has the sound of local democracy. As far as I know, it may make sense outside Greater London. I do not want to pontificate from only limited emperience about what happens there, but there is a problem.

Outside Greater London the local authority has some control over the police service in greater or less degree. In Greater London we have had to accept, for a variety of reasons, that local authorities do not control the police service. It is run by the Metropolitan Police, responsible to the Home Office. We Londoners pay for it by a precept to somebody called the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police. He is a receiver in the real sense in that he receives and we just have to pay, and that is that. If we say for Greater London, "This is a matter for the local authority", it will be cut off completely from any help which the Metropolitan Police might give or might wish to give.

What used this to mean in a school in Greater London? Every school in Greater London—and there are quite a lot of schools—was visited at least once a year by a team from the Metropolitan Police to help children to understand how they must behave in the jungle of Greater London, not only if they wanted to keep alive, but in a proper way and with consideration for their fellow citizens.

I have taken opinions from many sources. I believe that the unquestionable view of teachers in London as a whole is that if police teams do not visit the schools, while they do not question the local authorities will do their best—and I am not advancing any criticism of the local authorities—there will be a reduction of reality, of sympathy and of understanding, that the advice to children about how to behave in traffic problems will fall in value and that the good will and understanding on other matters between young people and the police will suffer.

However grim the economic situation of the nation after a year of the present Government, I cannot believe that it is necessary to make this miserable, little economy. Cannot the Government think again about it?

5.27 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) for drawing the Minister's attention to this problem in Greater London. It is causing much concern to literally hundreds of thousands of parents in the Greater London area.

The Minister of State will be aware of the correspondence which has passed between us, and I am grateful to him for the concern which he has expressed. He will also be aware of the petitions from worried parents in my constituency, particularly in Northolt, which I have handed to him. I should like to explain how this situation is causing upset among people on the Northholt housing estates.

People are aided when applying for council houses if they have many children. Sometimes, because of a lack of foresight and not particularly good planning, we do silly things like building large housing estates on one side of the main road and all the schools on the other.

Parents are emotionally concerned in this—and I measure my words carefully—in that children have been slain and maimed on their way to school because they could not negotiate the roads properly. I ask the House to consider what that statement means. I ask everyone within range of my voice to ask how they would feel if one of their children had been killed or maimed in this way.

I come to the magnificent contribution which the police have made towards reducing accidents of this sort. The teams which have been visiting the schools in the London Borough of Ealing are well known. Since 1965 they have taught thousands of children. Their method is to talk to primary school children about how to cross the road and to teach them kerb drill. It may be said that parents or teachers could do this, but the effect on the children of being taught by a uniformed police officer is tremendous. The same teams of police officers teach older children how to control their bicycles and put them through certain tests. Just before the children leave school, they are given lectures on road safety codes and the essentials of driving a motor car. We must recognise that because this instruction is given by the police much more cognisance is taken of it. If teachers or parents try to do it, the effect will not be the same.

From what I gather from the irate "mums" in my constituency, the police officers have done this job with great expertise and remarkable humour. They have immediately captured the confidence of the young people to whom they have been talking. Many people will say to a child, "If you don't behave yourself I'll send for a policeman." This is a wrong and distasteful attitude which the police have reversed. They have shown to young children in the Greater London area that the police officer is their friend, someone who is good to them and concerned about them, and not someone to fear. If only for this reason it would be a bad thing to dispense with these police teams.

The Minister of State will, no doubt, argue that the local authorities were given 12 months' warning of this impending disaster—that is what it is. I understand that 35 officers, sergeants and constables are involved. Will the Minister of State say this afternoon that during that 12 months another 35 policemen cannot be recruited to take on some of the jobs which the 35 officers in the teams have been doing?

The argument has been advanced that the 35 officers who have been doing this work are required to man certain accident black spots in Greater London. That is a commendable objective, but are we to understand that the black spots can be manned only by the police teams, and that during the intervening 12 months another 35 policemen cannot be recruited? I hope that the Minister will not accept that argument.

The Minister will enjoy the appreciation and praise of hundreds of thousands of parents throughout Greater London if he takes cognisance of what my right hon. Friend and I have said on behalf of our constituents. We have both been speaking on behalf of ordinary parents who are concerned that something which their children judge to be very valuable should be discontinued. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that ignominious decision will be reversed, so that the police teams can continue with the worth-while work they have been doing.

5.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)

The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has no need to apologise to the House for raising this subject. In view of the letters which I have received from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am under no illusion as to the importance which is attached to this subject, particularly by hon. Members representing Greater London constituencies. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) knows that I have received the petition which he presented, and I think I also owe him another letter in reply which I will send to him very shortly.

This subject was raised on an Adjournment debate on 5th February by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), but there is no reason why this subject should not be discussed again, and I hope during the debate to be able to give some reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I will not cover again all the ground which I covered in the debate on 5th February.

There is general recognition of the valuable work which has been done by the road safety teams, and I join in the tributes which have been paid to them. I emphasise, as I did on 5th February, first, that there is no question of the police either in London or elsewhere being advised to cease to take an interest in road safety in schools and, secondly, that there is no question of any force refusing to assist with road safety instruction in schools so far as its resources allow it to do so.

The decision to disband the road safety teams as from July, 1971, was, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, announced by New Scotland Yard in August, 1970. This was a decision of the Commissioner of Police in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to interfere. The Assistant Commissioner (Traffic)——

Mr. Michael Stewart

Is that so? I know that the Commissioner of Police has to decide many matters but, in the very last resort, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thinks that a decision is wrong is there nothing he can do about it?

Mr. Sharples

He can discuss matters of this kind with the Commissioner of Police, but the way in which the Commissioner deploys his manpower is entirely within his operational discretion.

The Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) wrote to local authorities within the Metropolitan Police District informing them of that decision and giving the reasons for it. The letter explained that the teams had been set up in the first place because there were no local organisations capable of doing the job properly. The letter drew attention to the then Ministry of Transport's policy of local authorities appointing road safety officers to organise and co-ordinate all road safety activities in their areas. It went on to explain the manpower difficulties in the Metropolitan Police.

Finally, the letter promised co-operation in training successors to the teams and in providing local police support for road safety officers' plans. I should like to quote one sentence from that letter: The Commissioner hopes that by giving this notice so long in advance of the withdrawal date, your council will have plenty of time in which to plan and put into effect such alternative arrangements as they may consider desirable. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons for the Commissioner's decision was the shortage of police manpower, and particularly of specialist officers trained on this kind of work. In fact, about 40 specialist officers were employed full-time in connection with the road safety teams. Whether this was the most effective contribution to road safety was a matter for decision by the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner believes that there are other and more effective means of using this specialised manpower consisting of 40 police officers with great experience. He hopes to be able to achieve a significant reduction in the number of accidents in the streets by appointing specialist groups of officers to undertake activities designed to prevent high-risk situations developing.

The Commissioner's plan for this is to set up a tactical reserve of specialist officers who can then be deployed on carefully worked out projects based on accident intelligence. The manpower for this reserve will be found by using the men at present manning the road safety teams, and I am certain that the House will accept that this is entirely an operational decision, which is within the discretion of the Commissioner of Police.

I should mention one other development which has occurred since the February debate. On 6th July this year my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced a number of measures which he proposed to take to reduce road casualties. One proposal was to place on the new county authorities a statutory road safety duty. This duty will include accident investigation and the taking of remedial measures.

I told the House in the debate on 5th February: Police personnel will remain available to train their successors—that is, the local police—and local police will be available to cooperate in future with local road safety officers in all local road safety activities including school visits. The best ways of doing this and of making the change as easy as possible are now under study."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 2170.] I should like to give the House the results of that study by the Commissioner of Police. He has decided that the police presence in schools on road safety matters can best be maintained by officers of the divisional juvenile bureaux assisted by local police officers working under the general direction of the community liaison officers. The bureaux are already in frequent contact with schools on other matters. From the beginning of the new school term in September it will become their responsibility, as part of their continuing involvement with children, to assist in road safety instructions in schools. The job will be carried out by specially trained members of the local juvenile bureaux assisted by local police officers, who will have received special training in this work. The juvenile bureaux scheme was introduced 2½ years ago. I think the House will agree that its success has proved the value of closer police involvement with young people. The effect of this latest decision is to extend the influence of the juvenile bureaux into road safety matters.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman on reflection might well see positive advantages in this approach to the problem. It will create a special relationship between police and children in schools, and it may bring this out in a more effective way than has been the case in the past, particularly since the local police are being brought into the picture. Each of the 24 juvenile bureaux in London will run a road safety group. Each group will probably consist of one sergeant, one police constable, and one woman police constable from the bureaux. They will be supplemented by local police officers who will liaise direct with schools as part of their ordinary duties. Training courses for the selected personnel are due to begin at the end of this month. Given good will, I can see no reason why the effectiveness of the Commissioner's plans for police participation in road safety instruction should not equal or even surpass that of the previous arrangements.

There is no dispute between us about the objectives we have in mind. We are all concerned about road safety, and particularly about the safety of school children, who are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a most vulnerable group in this respect.

Mr. Molloy

May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? What sort of a gap will there be between the termination of the present teams' activities and the new organisation? I am a little heartened by what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am suspicious that we might not have had the proposals which the hon. Gentleman has announced if a considerable row had not been made by hon. Members in this House and the general public about these police teams.

Mr. Sharples

I do not know about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, except that these proposals were put out by New Scotland Yard before I knew this debate was taking place. There will be no gap in the arrangements. This scheme will come into operation at the beginning of the new term in September.

The present Government, like their predecessors in office, have adopted a policy of local authority road safety officers co-ordinating local road safety activities. The police will continue to help as far as they can; and there is no question of police efforts being reduced as a result of Government policy.

It must remain the job of chief officers of police, in London and elsewhere, to make the best use they can of their man- power and resources in the matter of road safety, as in all other matters for which they are responsible. I hope that when hon. Members have given the Commissioner's plans full consideration, as they are now in a position to do, they will agree that the Commissioner's endeavours deserve our full support.