HC Deb 23 January 1976 vol 903 cc1785-96

4.01 p.m.

Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)

I welcome this opportunity to criticise the minimum height requirement for police recruits, which I believe to be unnecessary, out of date and against the interests of both the public and the police force itself.

As you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no interest to declare, being the tallest Member of the House and almost tall enough to be two policemen. It is therefore easier for me than for my shorter colleagues to argue that shorter members of the community should be entitled to be policemen.

I am delighted to see that the debate is being replied to by the tallest lady in the House, and I hope that she will share my good will towards those not so fortunately endowed as we are.

The requirements that police recruits should be above a minimum height date back to 1919. Although the nature of a policeman's work has changed enormously in the past 50 years, making height less relevant to the efficient discharge of duties, policemen still have to be above a minimum height. I have in my possession the main conditions of entry and terms of service for the Metropolitan Police, and on Page 5 it says: Qualifications for appointment. Height—a minimum of just under 5 ft. 8 in. for men, and just under 5 ft. 4 in. for women. The work that a policeman does has changed enormously over the past 50 years, and the recruiting conditions should reflect this.

There has been a growth in the amount of time spent detecting fraud. A large number of policemen work in scientific sections in the police force, pushing back the frontiers of knowledge on matters such as fingerprints. More time is spent on traffic control; more patrolling is done by car and less on foot.

In these areas of police work, which are of growing importance, height is totally irrelevant to the efficient discharge of duties. By restricting themselves to recruiting taller men, the police are depriving themselves of the services of half the male population in areas such as forensic science where height is of no consequence.

In addition to these growing areas, many of the traditional duties of the police can be perfectly efficiently performed by smaller men—for example, station duty and court duty.

What then are the duties of a policeman, which makes it so essential that he should be above 5 ft. 8 in.? I am bound to say that the police have been helping me in my inquiries. I quote from their own literature: People are his business and in the course of that business he has to play many rôles. He is part detective. Part psychologist. Part organiser. Part public relations officer". I ask the hon. Lady, to which of those jobs is height a prerequisite? The leaflet goes on to show some typical incidents in the day of a policeman—searching derelict houses for missing children, rescuing a family from a flooded house, escorting an ambulance by motorbike to hospital, climbing up a television mast to talk a man out of a suicide jump. Height is totally irrelevant to this typical range of functions shown in the brochure put out by the police themselves.

I readily concede to the hon. Lady that there is still a range of functions discharged by the police where height is an advantage. Crowd control is an example that springs to mind. The police maintain that in chasing, fighting and arresting criminals, height is an advantage. I would dispute this. So far as running is concerned, sprinters tend to be small men with a low centre of gravity. So far as arresting is concerned, height is not as important as a knowledge of the martial arts, such as judo and karate. Above all, it seems to me that there are other qualities which are more relevant, even when it comes to the physical aspects of a policeman's work. I have in mind qualities such as courage, determination, intelligence, fitness and experience.

But let us concede for one moment that height is an advantage in a number of functions, though I am bound to say that I personally have never experienced the charisma which the Police Federation alleges accompanies height. Is it right that one quality, of advantage in a restricted number of situations, should dictate the recruiting conditions for police who have so many other functions to perform? One could argue that it is helpful if Ministers are able to speak for one hour without reference to notes. However, it would be quite wrong for the Prime Minister to confine his Cabinet to individuals with that particular quality.

I think that we are concerned with striking a balance, and the balance that has currently been struck is far too much weighted in favour of particular jobs which form an ever diminishing part of a policeman's daily work.

I am bound to say to the hon. Lady that I have read with care the evidence given by the Police Federation to the various Royal Commissions and Committees that have examined this subject. Not one piece of objective evidence has been submitted supporting its hypothesis that taller policemen are more effective, stronger, fitter, more authoritative or in any way better at being policemen than shorter policemen. It talks in vague terms of "an immediate psychological advantage", the beneficial effects of a higher standard of physique, a need to return to the former standards and the tendency for the small policeman to attempt to make up for his lack of physical authority by the tone and volume of his voice. All these are highly subjective comments which have been allowed to determine policy for far too long, and I question the validity of these assumptions.

I turn to the current shortage in the police force which my proposals would alleviate. The latest figures I have show that the Metropolitan Police Force is 5,200 under strength, or roughly 20 per cent. of its complement. In England and Wales there were 11,595 vacancies. Clearly, with increasing public concern about the ability of the police to cope with the increase in crime of all sorts, these figures are worrying, and any means of encouraging recruitment should be thoroughly reviewed.

The hon. Lady may say that recruitment is now picking up. This is, in fact, because of the Government's disastrous economic policies which are throwing men, below and above 5ft. 8 ins., out of work. It would, however, be a mistake to fix the long-term recruiting conditions for the police force on the hypothesis that there will always be rising unemployment. Half the male population are currently precluded from applying to join the police, and, with the likely shortage once the economy picks up and men return to the private sector, we must re-examine the restrictive practice to which I have referred. I should like at this stage to deal with the attitude of the police themselves. I quite appreciate that the course of action which I advocate will be resisted by the Police Federation. It strengthens its hand in pay negotiations and other respects if it can argue that there is a shortage of policemen. Clearly, it would not wish this strong negotiating point to be removed from it by increasing at a stroke the potential number of recruits. However, the Home Office must take into account the broader public interest, and not simply reiterate the views of the Police Federation in this respect.

Related to the question of recruitment is the very valid point that if one has more policemen, there is less need for each individual policeman to be so tall. Clearly, two policemen of 5 ft 4 ins are going to be more of a deterrent and more effective than one policeman of 5 ft 8 ins.

The Police Federation has produced a further argument against reducing height minimum, and I quote from the Sunday Times of October 26th: There is a tendency for small men to make up by truculence what they lack in authority. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in a better position than anyone else to judge whether it is the smaller Members of this House who are the more truculent. I personally doubt whether this is the case, and I believe such a comment to be an unwarranted slight on those of less than average height.

I turn now to the issue of race relations. I have here an advertisement headed Is racial prejudice keeping you out of the Metropolitan Police Force? The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes", as the present height requirement excludes from the police force many sections of the community who do not happen to be as tall as the British. The advertisement says, plaintively, Many Londoners have never seen a black, oriental or Asiatic police officer. Of course they have not, because so many are kept out by the height requirements. The average height of a Gurkha is 5 ft 4 ins, of a Gujarati 5 ft 5 ins and of a Kashmiri 5 ft 7 ins.

Why should whole sections of the British community, here to stay and anxious to play their full rôle in society, be precluded from being policemen? Does not the absence of such members of the community from the police force give credence to the widely held impression that the police are themselves racially prejudiced? Is it not worth while, purely in terms of better race relations, relaxing the height requirement for members of the community I have mentioned? I would remind the hon. Lady that the British Government, when they recruited soldiers in Madras and Bengal, made concessions reflecting the differential height of the local community.

May I now touch on the practice in other countries? This country is virtually unique in having only one form of entry to the police force, as it were at ground level. Whatever job a policeman ends up doing, he has to start off "on the beat". Most other police forces have direct entry at various levels, for example to the criminal police where a legal degree is a common requirement, or they have direct entry to special supervisory or administrative grades, where height and other physical characteristics assume much less importance.

It is clear that other countries do not deny themselves, as we do, the services of smaller men. I notice that some countries have weight requirements, but I assume that these are maxima rather than minima, and they need not enter into our debate this afternoon. I understand that in Sweden there is no minimum height for police, and the height requirement for police in France is 5 ft. 6 ins. In the United States, I understand that height requirements are being progressively reduced because they discriminate against women.

It is the case that most other countries have minimum requirements for the police, but this must be read in conjunction with a comment I made earlier, that the degree of specialisation means that they can allocate those policemen above the minimum height to those jobs where height is relevant and can use those not so well endowed to do the increasing number of jobs within the police force where height is totally irrelevant.

I find that I am not alone in putting forward these arguments this evening: in 1949, the Oaksey Committee said: It seems to us wrong that forces badly in need of recruits should turn away candidates who are otherwise eminently suitable merely because of an inch or two of height. A Royal Commission set up in 1960, noting the conflicting evidence which it had received, agreed with Oaksey.

Further, the County Councils Association has been the strongest advocate of the pragmatic argument in its evidence to the Commission, talking about "artificial restraints" on recruitment, and while not wishing to interfere with local discretion it felt it right to: draw attention to the fact that a number of authorities, including some which are markedly under strength, by insisting on a minimum height higher than is prescribed, are substantially reducing the field for recruitment. The Working Party on Manpower of 1967 could not come to an agreement on the subject because of the difference of opinion between the police representatives, who took the view that shorter policemen would lack sufficient authority, and the Home Office and local authority representatives who felt that the standard should be abolished and the matter left to the discretion of chief constables. This they said would make possible the recruitment into the police service of a number of able and intelligent recruits, who, although they lack stature, would undoubtedly have a useful contribution to make. … There are many duties which could be efficiently discharged by smaller men, and the number of these duties may well increase with the introduction of different systems of policing". In the light of this evidence from Committees of this House which have looked into the matter, in the light of practice in other countries, in the light of the growing degree of specialisation in police forces throughout the world, in the light of current shortage of policemen in this country and the need to promote good community relations, the time has come for the Government to review their policy.

As I have raised, in the House, the height requirement of police recruits, I hope that the hon. Lady will now lower it.

4.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for raising this subject and for providing the opportunity to remove some possible misunderstandings about the application of the police regulations.

Perhaps I should explain at once that the minimum height requirement laid down in the regulations is only one of those prescribed for potential recruits to the police service. There are others that cover the maximum and minimum ages for recruitment, medical standards, including eyesight, and the separate questions of educational standards and character requirements. I agree with the hon. Member's general view that these qualifications must relate directly to the requirements essential to the work of a police officer, and that they should not arbitrarily exclude any group of applicants who might in fact be suitable.

The qualifications must not be regarded as inflexible and immutable, and they should be capable of adjustment as necessary to accord with the changes that take place within the service itself and in society. In fact, all the qualifications are subject to periodical review in this way, including the height qualification. At one time, for example, the hon. Member would not have been acceptable in the police force, because he wears spectacles, but almost all forces are now prepared to take otherwise acceptable recruits who wear glasses or contact lenses, provided that their eyesight is of a certain minimum standard. Similarly, the minimum age for recruitment was reduced last year from 19 to 18½.

These changes were made because Ministers and the service accepted that they were objectively justified. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the need to recruit more police officers and gave some figures. Neither we nor the service would wish to see standards lowered solely on account of the difficulty in making up deficiencies. During 1973 the Metropolitan Police had a net gain in strength of 377, and it would be even less sensible now to go below the standards that the work demands. We are always ready to reconsider whether, on objective grounds, the standards we are using are right.

As regards the height standards themselves, the police regulations lay down 172 cm for men and 162 cm for women. These are the metric equivalents of 5 ft. 8 in. and 5 ft 4 in. In fact, the introduction of the metric standard last year involved a reduction of about ⅓in. I should, however, make clear that these figures represent a national minimum, and the regulation specifically gives discretion to chief officers of police to make exceptions. They can and do accept candidates who are below the prescribed height, if otherwise suitably qualified for appointment.

It is, of course, no use giving chief officers a discretion if candidates do not present themselves, and are deterred from doing so because of the height requirement. The fact that discretion exists is mentioned in national recruiting publicity advertisements and in the literature, but, I admit, not always in advertisements and literature issued by individual forces. I assure the hon. Member that we are correcting this anomaly as part of a general overhaul of police recruitment literature that is now in progress. The new advertisement and literature will make the position quite plain, and potential candidates for the police who are slightly below the advertised figures will not be deterred from applying simply on that account.

It has been suggested that in modern conditions the maintenance of a height standard for the police is no longer necessary and that it now constitutes an unfair barrier for a number of otherwise suitable candidates. This is not the view generally held in the police service itself. The service has argued strongly that, despite the introduction of modern equipment—the increasing use of patrol cars, for instance, and the universal use of personal radios—the essential part of a police constable's work involves close and individual contact with the public. It follows that constables must simply by their bearing and presence, be more easily able to command respect. They will often be working alone, and in some places, unhappily, they will be in situations in which they are liable to provocation or physical attack.

The experience of the police in these circumstances is that although ability and personality are essential, the officer's appearance and bearing can also have a most decisive influence on the public's reaction. The general view is that the taller officer has a definite advantage. I appreciate that there are aspects of police work where height is not an important factor, such as in fraud squads. However—I want to emphasise this—our law is based, and our police service works, on the principle—which is a good one—that a police officer must at any time be prepared to undertake any police duty. Those serving in posts of a specialised nature must first have acquired the basic knowledge of police work on ordinary duty, and we cannot make an exception for them.

We should not draw too close a [...]rallel between the police and the Armed Forces. I accept that regiments composed traditionally of small men may in the past have had the reputation of being among the most effective in combat, but for the police the situation is different. The most critical decisions and the most critical reactions are usually those of the individual constable or sergeant. That individual constable or sergeant is unarmed—unlike most foreign police officers. He is often on his own and exercising his own individual authority, and sometimes facing large numbers, or determined opposition. The conclusion which has been reached in successive reviews—most recently by a Working Party on Police Manpower in 1966 and by the Police Advisory Board in 1973—has been that policemen generally should be of at least average height for the population of this country, although there should be discretion to make exceptions were necessary.

In 1974 the House of Commons Expenditure Committee, in its Seventh Report, considered the whole question of police recruitment and wastage. Part of the evidence to the Committee concerned the physical qualifications, including the height standard. The Committee recognised the reluctance of the Police Federation in particular to accept any reduction in the standards for joining the police and it also acknowledges the force of the arguments that had been advanced against any lowering of standards. The Committee made no recommendation for any change in the height requirement.

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of candidates to the police from the ethnic minority groups. There are about 120 coloured officers serving with police forces in England and Wales. This represents only about 0.1 per cent. of the total police strength in the country. There is clearly scope to increase that proportion, and every effort is being made to do that. The hon. Gentleman said that the height requirement operated as a form of discrimination against some of the ethnic minority groups, on the ground that their average height is below that of the population in this country as a whole. I accept that there are some groups whose average height is lower.

The House will be aware of the efforts that are being made to attract more coloured people to a career in the police, and neither the Home Secretary nor chief officers of police would wish to place any artificial restrictions in their way. Even so, we do not intend that coloured people should be chosen simply to represent their racial groups or to serve primarily to police areas predominantly inhabited by people of similar origin. They will perform the full range of police duties, serve anywhere in their force area, and have the same opportunities for advancement and specialisation as any of their colleagues. The qualifications for the police service are, as I have attempted to show, set in relation to just this range of police duties, and we should not want to accept different standards for coloured applicants, either of height or in respect of any of the other requirements. At the same time, I must emphasise again that chief officers are not rigidly limited by the minimum heights laid down in the regulations. They are well aware that members of some ethnic groups tend to be slightly below the average height for the population of this country as a whole. I shall draw to their attention the views and doubts expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that my remarks about the reasoning behind the regulations have reassured the hon. Gentleman and the House to some extent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Four o'clock.