HC Deb 31 July 1981 vol 9 cc1410-7

2 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the special constabulary. It seems a timely moment to do so. This autumn marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Special Constables Act 1831, which established the voluntary element in Britain's police service in the form that we know today. There will be various parades and ceremonies to mark the anniversary, culminating in a service at Westminster Abbey to be attended by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I hope that all the celebrations of the special constabulary's past will be accompanied by some thoughtful planning for its future. After all, 1981 has proved to be a year in which events have caused almost everyone to think hard about various aspects of police policy. Future policing methods, future police recruitment and future machinery for independent investigation and supervision of complaints about the police are all under scruntiny and review as never before. It is my hope that this debate will encourage the Government similarly to review the future of the special constabulary.

For several years, under successive Governments, the special constabulary seems to have been suffering from benign neglect. During the past decade the strength of the specials has more than halved, from 32,000 officers in 1970 to 15,000 today. Even since the present Government came to office, the number of specials has fallen by over 10 per cent.

The time has come to take a Government initiative to halt this decline, particularly in these critical days, when some of our regular police forces are severely overstretched and are making only a token contribution towards community policing, to which specials, by their very nature as genuine residents in their local community, can contribute so much. My purpose in initiating the debate is therefore to call on the Government to expand, strengthen and revitalise the specials, so that they can be built up into an effective and well-trained police reserve with roots in their local communities.

How can all that be achieved? The priorities for the specials are more training and more recruitment. Neither priority should be all that difficult to achieve, provided the political will exists, because there are such solid foundations to build on within the existing structure of the special constabulary.

One of the paradoxes of the specials at present is that, although their overall numbers are declining, individual enthusiasm for voluntary police service seems to be riding high. I should like to give one or two examples. On Merseyside recently the 350 specials have made an invaluable contribution during the civil disturbances. They have been turning out for duty virtually every evening to make up the patrols on the beat and to man police stations, not in the riot zones but in outside divisions, where the regular police strength has been depleted by the calls of Toxteth and other stricken areas.

In Brixton and in Southall, during the recent disturbances the specials acted as guides and pathfinders to police officers drafted in from other parts of the Metropolitan Police area, thus emphasising that the local community knowledge of the specials can be invaluable in a tense situation.

While I am on the subject of the Metropolitan Police special constabulary, I think that mention should be made this week of the fact that no fewer than 900 specials were on duty at the Royal wedding, doing a long day's voluntary service, starting at 3 am, which was an invaluable assistance to the work of the regular police.

But, although there is abundant evidence of enthusiasm for and dedication to police work by individual special constables in various parts of the country, I fear that I must tell the House that it does not seem to be matched by any corresponding enthusiasm for, or even positive interest in, the special constabulary by officialdom within the Government. As evidence for what I must call the persistently negative attitude shown towards the specials by the Home Office bureaucracy, I cite the most recent reports of the Home Office working parties on the special constabulary in 1975 and in 1981.

The 1975 report was a particularly dismal document, given over to what can only be called nitpicking in arcane sartorial arguments about the merits of shoulder flashes, diced cap bands and miniature metal bars as opposed to chevrons on police uniforms. All this seems esoteric to outsiders. All that is necessary is that special constables should look as much like regular police officers as is reasonably possible and not like some other branch of the administration, such as traffic wardens.

The same negative approach has characterised this year's working party report. Although not yet published, it is well known to be on much the same lines as the 1975 document, filled with frustrating emphasis on detailed minutiae and sadly lacking in positive, forward-looking proposals which are necessary to halt the withering on the vine of the special constabulary.

To me by far the most disappointing aspect of the 1981 report is its failure to recommend that special constables should be entitled to receive a Territorial Army-style bounty. I know that there are two views about the bounty, even within the special constabulary. It is all very well to stress the ideal of voluntary service in its purest form, but not against the background of a decline in numbers of the scale that I described earlier. If the present trend of wastage within the special constabulary continues, we shall have no special constables at all by the early 1990s. That is something that everyone wishes to avoid.

Against that background, we must look for new solutions and approaches to the two priorities of recruitment and training. I should like to put forward the following 10-point plan to revitalise the specials.

First, the Government should introduce a bounty exactly the same as the Territorial Army's. Incidentally, the Terriers have a voluntary spirit and enthusiasm that have in no way been defiled or sullied by the tax-free payment of a bounty of £200 or £300 a year, depending on their length of service. I believe that a similar bounty for the special constabulary would cost the country less than £300 million a year, out of a police budget of over £1,500 million, and do more than anything else to revitalise recruitment.

Secondly, the Government must initiate an advertising campaign for recruits. It is well proved that local advertising in particular pays dividends. I recall that in 1974 the Metropolitan Police special constabulary had an advertising campaign on the London Underground that cost £10,000 and in one year produced a 30 per cent. increase in the special constabulary strength in London.

Thirdly, we should encourage the regular police, many of whom retire in their early fifties today, to continue their links with the police service by joining the specials. A bounty, together with the realisation that the special constabulary has a real role to play in modern policing, along the lines of the contribution in Merseyside and in Brixton that I have described, would be an encouragement to many officers to do that.

Fourthly, we must ask the publicity departments of police forces, and of the Home Office, to be much more active in publicising the work and achievements of specials, so that the public are much more aware of their work.

Fifthly, we should make a new appointment of a senior civil servant within the Home Office to have responsibility for the special constabulary. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will know from the recent successful appointment of a new director-general of the prison service, a new face within the bureaucracy can make an immense difference to policy and enthusiasm for that policy.

At present there are disturbing grumbles about the lethargic and at times allegedly positively obstructive attitudes of low-level civil servants in the police department at the Home Office towards the special constabulary and the small funds directed to it. That is reflected to some extent in the working party reports, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider making the shake-up that is necessary within the police department and its personnel.

Sixthly, negotiations should take place with the Police Federation to sweep away the last remnants of Police Federation hostility to the special constabulary. The Police Federation has traditionally had a less-than-generous approach to co-operation with the special constabulary—an attitude that sprang from a mistaken shop steward-like belief that the use of specials by chief constables somehow, in theory, prevented overtime payments, and even jobs, going to regulars. Since the Edmund-Davies report on police pay, those fears, which were always extremely doubtful, have proved utterly without foundation, because today the regular police are well paid and get plenty of overtime.

Nevertheless, some vestiges of hostility remain. For example, on Merseyside, where there is a traditionally militant Police Federation branch, the federation does not permit specials to go on motor patrols with regulars. That is the sort of anachronistic nonsense that must be swept away—as I am sure it will be—as regulars and specials are seen to work more closely and with more mutual respect than ever before. Indeed, that has happened during the past few weeks on Merseyside.

Seventhly, on the training front, there is a real need for the Home Secretary to set aside a modest sum of money from the police budget exclusively for the better training of specials. That is perhaps the most urgent priority, given the situation that has been created by recent events. The country needs the manpower of specials as never before, but is is imperative that training is brought up to a higher standard. Weekend camps, more instructors and better equipment are all part of that training, but the funds for it will be found only if they are properly earmarked and allocated exclusively for the special constabulary.

Eighthly, I recommend the establishment of some separate training facilities for specials. For example, I know that the chief commandant of the Metropolitan special constabulary has put forward a proposal that one building at the Metropolitan Police complex at Hendon should be set aside for the training of specials and the housing of their equipment. He has even suggested that the building might be called "Whitelaw House", so perhaps that will immortalise the Home Secretary as the political leader who gave the special constabulary its proper priority in the police service.

Ninthly, I hope that the Home Secretary will raise the whole question of the future of the special constabulary when he has his next meeting with chief constables. Some chief constables are more positive than others towards the specials. The laggards need to be given a lead by the Home Secretary to ensure a united approach.

Of course, many chief constables do not need any such lead. For example, there was an admirable letter in The Times of 23 July from the chief constable of Warwickshire, Mr. Roger Birch, in which he gave generous praise to the specials in his area, particularly for their contribution towards community policing. I can do no better than to quote the last paragraph of his letter: By way of bonus to the community there is the fact that as part of their training Specials patrol with regular officers, which gives strength to our all too thin blue line engaged in community policing. Additionally, as men and women chosen from a wide spectrum of occupations and backgrounds, they provide a link for better understanding between the regular police and the community they serve. Those words of the chief constable of Warwickshire seem to strike exactly the right keynote for the future of the special constabulary. The specials are an ideal bridge between the regular police and the community. Has there ever been a time when bridge building was more necessary?

The police manpower of the specials is always useful and at times invaluable. Moreover, the spirit of voluntary service which the specials embody is something which the country needs, which the Government are trying to encourage, and which could be of great personal benefit to the young men and women who may enrol as special constables.

I speak from experience as an ex-special constable when I say that voluntary police work is an immensely interesting and satisfying experience for any young person. However, all the good intentions and the personal or community ideals which go with them will come to nothing if the Government fail to act to halt the decline of the special constabulary.

For the reasons that I have mentioned, now is surely the right time for tie Home Secretary to take positive action to give the specials a far higher priority in both Home Office and Treasury thinking. If the Government were to implement all the items in my 10-point plan, including the bounty, advertising and training, it would still cost less than £5 million out of a law and order budget in excess of £3,500 million. That is why the tenth point of my plan is a political initiative by the Government to take a lead in this matter, and that is what I hope we shall hear more of in the response of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate.

2.18 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) for having taken this opportunity to bring before the House the problems of and the possibilities for the special constabulary. He speaks with personal experience of service in this admirable arm of our police service, and he is a doughty, persistent and valuable supporter of the special constabulary and its advocate in the House. As recently as 16 July, he raised many important matters on its behalf, and thus on behalf of the whole community that it serves.

I hope to deal with most of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. At the outset, I acknowledge gratefully what he said about the special constables in the Metropolitan Police force for their recent services in Brixton and Southall and—perhaps most notably in the public memory—two days ago on the occasion of the Royal wedding. What he said will be gratefully acknowledged by the special constables, and on their behalf I express my gratitude to him. Similarly, in Merseyside, the special constabulary has rendered conspicuous service in recent days, and continues to do so.

I noted with care my hon. Friend's 10-point plan. I can at once agree with some of his recommendations. Others are more controversial. Those with which I agree include his third point, that regulars who are thinking of retiring or coming to the point of retiring should be encouraged to consider joining the special constabulary, where they would contribute a welcome element of experience and knowledge. In some forces that already happens. It is a good idea, and I hope that it spreads.

I hope that the Police Federation and others who have traditionally seen some threat in a strong special constabulary will be encouraged by my right hon. Friend and by all of us to sweep away that idea. I hope that specials and regulars can treat one another as partners in a common service to the community.

I acknowledge the value of the letter by Mr. Birch, the chief constable of Warwickshire, which was published in The Times earlier this month. I, too, read the letter, as did my noble Friend Lord Belstead, who is the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the police service. He read the letter with great pleasure and approval.

It is particularly appropriate that we should discuss the special constabulary at this time. As my hon. Friend reminded us, 1981 is the one hundred and fiftieth year after the special constabulary was statutorily founded in the Act of 1831. The origins of the special constabulary are lost in history. It is probably the oldest voluntary service that we have. It took statutory form in 1831. In those days there was no regular police force as we now know it.

I wish to take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend today to pay tribute to the work of the special constabulary generally—not those whom we have singled out today for special mention—in providing support for the police. Its members have a long and honourable tradition of service. It is as important today as it has ever been. As my hon. Friend said, only two days ago between' 800 and 900 special constables were in London on the occasion of the wedding festivities. Each winter, throughout the country, they regularly help at football matches. In summer, they provide valuable support in regulating the flow of traffic at holiday resorts and policing special events.

A most notable illustration of that was provided by the Coventry air show, where an emergency arose because of a march that took place there. The air show was controlled almost entirely by the special constabulary. All that is in addition to their help with the routine patrolling of the police service. Our thanks are due to them, and especially to their commandants. If an enthusiastic and knowledgeable commandant is in charge of the special constabulary, he makes an important contribution.

As my hon. Friend knows, during the past five years there have been two studies of the role of the special constabulary. I have to part company with him in his description of the reports. One has been published and the other was completed only this month. He thought that they were negative in their attitude. That is not fair. When the report of the second working party is circulated —it is already in the hands of the police advisory board—it will be a constructive and valuable report. I shall refer to its broad conclusions during my remarks.

Both working parties included representatives of the police staff associations and the special constabulary, in addition to local authority associations, the Home Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. They were representative of those who either form part of the police service or have an interest in its organisation.

The strength of the special constabulary has declined in recent years. I do not take as gloomy a view of that as does my hon. Friend. He knows that a significant factor in the wastage rate in recent years has been the earlier working party's recommendations that the retirement age for special constables should normally be 55. He will agree that that is sensible. The decline in numbers is also due, in part, to the efforts in recent years to retire members who are no longer active. He will know that until recently a significant proportion of the special constabulary did not turn up very often. By the end of 1979 chief officers reported that more than 85 per cent. of all special constables were performing duties regularly. That has been welcomed by the active members of the specials.

The Metropolitan Police has more than 1,600 special constables, the West Midlands more than 600 and Devon and Cornwall more than 900. In my county—and that of my hon. Friend—of Kent there were more than 500 in December 1980, a small increase compared with December 1979. It is not entirely accurate simply to point to the decline in numbers and say that that is evidence of what my hon. Friend describes as benign neglect. I do not think that that is right.

The working party that has just reported was set up to review the role of the special constabulary and to examine the scope for increasing its ability to help the regular police service. Clearly, as the police service has become more professional and the technical aids it uses more sophisticated, there are limits to the range of police duties that special constables can be asked to undertake. That is far from saying, however, that there is no place for volunteers operating in support of the police. Volunteers should be encouraged, and are encouraged by the Government, to play their part.

The working party concluded that there should be no major change in the role of the special constabulary. It confirmed that special constables should, after suitable training, perform police duties and exercise police powers under the supervision of regular police officers. That will enable regular officers to concentrate their experience and skill where it is most needed. Specials should be ready to take over routine policing functions in the event of an emergency, which would free regular police officers for large-scale police deployment. The Coventry episode is a good example of that. Those are exactly the sort of duties to which my hon. Friend referred both today and in the debate on civil disturbances on 15 July.

My hon. Friend referred to the problems that had arisen in the past between the regular police, represented by the Police Federation, and the special constables. It is true that there have been difficulties. Sometimes, the work done by special constables has been perceived by the regulars as a threat to or intrusion on their preserves. Those days are passing, even if they are not entirely past. I am glad to say that the Police Federation has said that relations with the specials has greatly improved in recent years.

As I said, there are limits to the sort of police work that special constables can be asked to do. The working party believes that the range of general duties that they carry out could be increased. That is a matter for local chief constables. The duties that special constables are asked to undertake in each force are a matter for the chief constables. It is in the interests of all regular police officers to encourage and make full use of the special constabulary. There would be greater understanding between the two arms if, during their induction into the police service, regulars were taught about the role and function of the special constabulary. It is plain that the better the training available to the special constabulary and the higher the efficiency that they attain, the easier will be their working relationship with the regulars.

It is essential that it should not be thought that to employ special constables is to run the risk of having to divert regular police officers to their support by reason of their having been insufficiently trained or being otherwise unfitted for the role in which they are deployed. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point about the need for up-to-date and adequate training. In due course he will see that the working party itself attaches great importance to that. An annex to the report sets out a substantial basic training programme that is recommended to chief officers of police.

The working party concluded that there was a need for greater variety in training. The purpose of training should be threefold—to convey essential information, to stimulate interest and to develop potential. In many forces, formal and frequently repetitive lectures are the staple diet of training programmes for special constables. Such lectures are not the best way to develop or to sustain interest. The working party, therefore, recommended that training should, wherever possible, take the form of practical demonstration or role playing. It recommended a two-year core programme of basic training that should be used nationally as a guide for the training of recruits to the special constabulary. The programme should be adapted to suit the training facilities available and the force requirements of individual localities. That programme would complement the training on the job that special constables receive by working alongside regular officers.

The working party noted that some forces held short residential courses for their special constables, usually over a weekend. It thought that such training should be continued because it would do a great deal to enhance job satisfaction and maintain proficiency. It also considered that a training programme on those lines would attract recruits, engender interest among serving officers and enable the officer in charge of training to assess the ability of the specials. It considered that there should be a probationary period of 12 months for special constables and that forces should introduce a recruitment test based on the standardised entrance test for the regular force.

It is important, especially in view of what my hon. Friend said, to note that the special constabulary is not a national force. It is based on individual forces, and rightly. Local efforts have been the basis of recruitment in the past, and that should continue. Serving specials themselves are probably the best recruitment officers. Their efforts can be valuably reinforced locally by advertising or by other means. A few forces encourage those on their waiting lists to join the regular police to become special constables. I have already mentioned that point. It is a first-class idea that we warmly encourage. I am glad that some forces have been successful in recruiting members of ethnic minorities as special constables.

The bounty is a matter of dispute and of controversy within the special constabulary. I hear what my hon. Friend says about it. Older members of the force believe that it would not be a good thing. Younger members on the whole tend to support it. It will be considered, but my hon. Friend knows well the financial constraints that exist.

My hon. Friend is right in speaking of the bridge between the community and the police service that the specials can provide. The close association of volunteers with the regular police as colleagues working together in the public service will greatly encourage our communities to support their police in carrying out their varied and difficult duties on their behalf. The Government would like to see the numbers of the special constabulary increased and their supportive capabilities enhanced.