§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Neubert.]
12.14 am§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to this debate, and as I have told his office, I want to share this half-hour with all Leicestershire Members. I have given both you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend notice that any Leicestershire Member who seeks to catch your eye over the next 15 minutes has my consent to do so. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom custom requires to remain silent, but who is tremendously involved in this issue. I shall be brief, to allow time for other hon. Members to take part.
I pay tribute to the efficiency and outstanding public service of the Leicestershire constabulary, excellently led by its chief constable, Mr. Michael Hirst. It is a small force with only 1,740 members, but its reputation is high in the county, and it is fiercely proud of its good relations with the Leicestershire people. However, it is understaffed. There has been no significant increase in its establishment since 1979, but there has been a big increase in its work load. Between 1979 and 1986, there was a 64 per cent. increase in crime in the county, but worse, there was a 191.5 per cent. increase in robbery, a 127 per cent. increase in burglary of dwellings and a 151 per cent. increase in criminal damage. Those are shocking figures, and they contain some of the crimes that give the public most concern. They must be tackled; we must bring the figures down sharply, and for that we need more police.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may say that Leicestershire has been treated fairly, but he has refused to allow one more officer this year, let alone the 45 extra officers for whom the chief constable called. Up-to-date figures show that nine forces with a worse percentage of officers deployed on patrol duties and a poorer population of civilians per 100 police officers, were given an increase in police numbers when Leicestershire got nothing. Again, nine forces which received an increase in numbers in May have a lower population per police officer. That seems unfair.
Leicestershire Members, including myself, have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers. When Conservative Members saw both those Ministers in March, we stressed that the chief constable had undertaken a major review of the force. We wanted to eliminate two grounds of criticism that had been advanced by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in 1986. The proportion of the force on patrol duties has been significantly improved, and a substantial programme of civilianisation has been set in motion. The force believes that it has done what the Home Office asked of it, and it is dismayed that its co-operation has met with no reward of extra manpower.
I am concerned about the most recent figures relating to the health of the force. In the first three months of this year, 1,212 days were lost through injuries to officers on duty, compared with 602 in the 12 months before, and 1,048 days were lost through nervous complaints and stress, compared with only 161 a year before.
169 We are experiencing in Leicestershire the repulsive sight of violence and yobbish disorder in rural areas. My constituents insist that the small towns and villages be properly policed. Leicestershire had over 12 incidents of rural disorder in 1987. That is a gloomy record, which it shares with only seven other force areas. That is not tolerable, and the chief constable must have the manpower to maintain the Queen's peace throughout the county, as he is determined to do.
My final point is a very local one. The police station at Oakham is a quite deplorable temporary building, nearly 20 years old. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me in a letter on 31 March that he hoped to be able to give approval for a new police station in Oakham this coming November, with building work to start in 1991–92. I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in no uncertain terms that I shall insist that that undertaking be honoured. I was at Oakham police station as recently as last Friday, meeting the chief constable, and it is not good enough for our Rutland bobbies to have to put up with such a shameful old building.
I look to my hon. Friend to assure Leicestershire people that he is concerned about their policing. I am sure that other hon. Members representing Leicestershire will want to say the same.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for raising this matter on the Adjournment and for his courtesy in sharing his precious and brief time with other colleagues.
This is an issue upon which all hon. Members are united. We are outraged at the increase in crime over the past nine years, at the fact that, last year, the chief of police did not obtain any of the additional help that he requested from the Home Secretary and that, this year, not one additional police officer has been permitted.
It is not enough to pontificate about the growth in crime. The only way in which we shall enable people to walk safely on our streets is by increasing the strength of the force that patrols those streets. That applies in rural and city areas and especially in my constituency, in the great estates of Beaumont Leys, New Parks, Mowmacre, Stocking Farm, and Braunstone, where there are not sufficient police officers and where they can obtain more only by taking officers from other areas. That must stop. The police must be increased in numbers and the Government must listen to the united voice of all hon. Members from our great county.
§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) who has been kind enough to let us participate in his debate and, like him and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I shall be brief.
The gravity with which Leicestershire Members, from all parties, view the situation can be gauged by our presence here tonight. Every Leicestershire Member, except, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is present tonight, and we shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton gave the hare statistics, which are very telling, but he did not elaborate on two points. First, the present calibre and 170 quality of the Leicestershire policeman is unsurpassed. We want new recruits. We must have an increased establishment and we want more of the same top-quality officers that we have in Leicestershire now. The second point that should be emphasised,—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass it on to the Home Secretary as soon as possible, is that, in Leicestershire, we have to cope with some very grave situations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the strange and savage character of many crimes that we have had to face in the past 12 months in Leicester. Some of the most brutal crimes in the country have occurred there and we always have the potential for serious crime because of the large number of high-risk prisoners who are held—perhaps I should say not held—in the city and county. I refer here to the continual need for vigilance by the police force at prisons such as Gartree maximum security establishment, where the first helicopter escape in the United Kingdom took place only recently. We are a special case and, we expect special treatment next year.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester., East)The good fortune of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) is shared by all of us and we are all grateful to him for allowing us the chance to participate in the debate. This is, of course, a central issue of concern to people in Leicestershire and the city of Leicester. One crime is committed every 10 minutes in the county and, last year, 50,900 crimes were committed, representing a 65 per cent. increase since 1979.
I join other hon. Members in praising the work of the chief constable, Michael Hirst, and of divisional commander David Redman., but it is important for the Minister to realise that the demand for extra policing is not just based on the inner-city areas of Leicester. The demand comes more strongly and clearly from the outer estates, places in my constituency such as Northfields, Nether Hall, Evington, Goodwood and Rowletts Hill. A recent meeting at Humberstone was attended by a number of residents who were most concerned about the increase in vandalism that is occurring in the outer areas. These are neglected areas with the inner-city problems which we have had over a number of years.
I, too, met the Minister. I was concerned when he said that he had to hold in reserve a number of police officers in case there were disorders in various parts of the country and he was called upon to allocate extra officers to deal with them. Leicestershire should not be penalised because it has good police-community relations. A survey recently conducted in the outer estates of Leicester showed a tremendous demand for increased policing, including the full-time opening of the Uppingham road police station.
The Minister's refusal to provide any extra police officers for Leicestershire is a slap in the face to the local police force, which has worked. hard over the past few years, including Superintendent David Adams, who has expressed concern, and to the elderly, who are unable to walk the streets of Leicestershire without fearing for their lives and their safety. We urge the Minister to reconsider the allocation and to give Leicestershire what it deserves, which is extra police officers on the beat.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for raising this matter in debate and allowing myself and others to intervene.
On Friday, I met the chief constable to discuss the very matter my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has drawn to the attention of the House tonight. I found that he was of the opinion—it was one that I shared with him—that the morale of the police force in Leicestershire is at its highest, despite all the problems that it faces. That speaks well for it.
I recently went out on a police patrol on a Saturday night—there is a problem of vandalism, especially on a Saturday night—and from what I saw on that occasion I cannot speak too highly of the force. I visited the Leicester football ground recently, and there saw all the efforts that are being made to contain rowdyism and football hooliganism. Once again, I was much impressed by the high standards of the Leicestershire police.
Unfortunately, the level of crime is rising. There are problems in rural areas in my constituency, for example, where residents are paying their rates, paying for the police force and paying their taxes generally. Those who live in villages and towns have as much right to be protected as those who live in the cities. There is a problem with hooliganism. Recently, in Coalville, a large crowd of drunken youths went on the rampage through the town and there were nine arrests. That was viewed extremely seriously by the people of the town, who were most concerned at the level of policing. Fortunately, the Leicestershire police were able to cope, but I am not too sure that they can continue doing so for much longer with problems of that sort.
All the figures show that the Leicestershire police have done their utmost to comply with Home Office demands. What more can they do to get more officers? The figures show that they have done everything possible. I join my fellow Leicestershire colleagues in saying that we must have an increase in the manpower of the Leicestershire police force.
§ Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on being fortunate enough to secure the Adjournment debate. I express my gratitude to him for allowing me to participate in it as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
The cross-party unity on this issue shows beyond a shadow of doubt the resentment that is felt by all people in Leicestershire at the Home Secretary's decision not to increase the police establishment in the county by 45. I appreciate that criticisms were made in 1986 by Her Majesty's inspector, but my view—I am sure that it is shared by all hon. Members—is that great strides have been made in eliminating two particular criticisms that were then made. In terms of officers on patrol duties and civilianisation, Leicestershire is among the best areas in the country. The two specific criticisms made in 1986 have now been eliminated.
The point has been made—which we do not need to over-emphasise—that crime is on the increase in Leicestershire, as it is throughout the country. 172 Increasingly, that is placing an intolerable burden and stress on the present police establishment. At the minimum, to remove that stress and to remove some of the burden, the Minister can take a step in the right direction by accepting the view of the chief constable and that of the police committee that at least 45 officers are required to increase the establishment now.
I urge the Minister to make that bold decision this evening, not just to placate his hon. Friends and Opposition Members, but to reassure the citizens in the county of Leicestershire.
§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)I too am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I am desperately concerned that the Hinckley sub-division is becoming stretched when it has to deal with disorders such as that in Smeeton Westerby in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan), where 40 or 50 youths invaded a party. That night, police had to be drawn from Hinckley, Lutterworth and Wigston to cope with the disorders. That left Hinckley precariously under-policed.
We have heard about the disturbances at Coalville from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). That was another occasion when police were taken from Hinckley to deal with a disturbance. I spoke to the superintendent this afternoon, who told me that there was trouble in Nuneaton a few days ago. Officers from Hinckley had to be put on duty between 2 am and 3 am. We are very concerned about the problem in Hinckley. We need the extra police. Our police are doing a tremendous job, but I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have not had an increase in complement in Leicestershire for the best part of a decade. Minister, give us our police and give them to us now.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)I recognise the very strong feelings felt by Leicestershire Members of Parliament on this issue. That concern is manifested by the fact that all eight Members from the county are in the Chamber tonight and seven have spoken. The eighth, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is precluded from speaking by convention. However, he has made his views on the subject crystal clear by his presence tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lawson?"] Of course, the same applies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on having secured this debate and put his arguments so concisely and lucidly. Incidently, I also congratulate him on allowing six other hon. Members to join in the debate. In all my experience, I cannot remember that happening before. It made the debate much more interesting than it might otherwise have been.
This has been an important debate, because it has emphasised the strength of feeling. I want to describe the approach that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has adopted to the Leicestershire constabulary. If time allows, I will refer to the wider problems of the police service.
173 At the end of April, the strength of the Leicestershire constabulary stood at 2,250 men. That figure is made up of 1,749 police officers and 501 civilians. That represents an increase of 187 since May 1979, when the Government took office, of whom 48 are police officers. During that period, 27 extra police officer posts have been approved for the force establishment, which now stands at 1,733.
The background to the application has been alluded to by several of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. In June 1986, the police authority applied to the Home Office for approval of an increase of 110 police officer posts over two financial years. As hon. Members will appreciate, the inspectorate was consulted on the merits of that application. On the basis of the advice that the Home Office received, the police authority was informed that its application could not be approved.
The justification for that decision was that there existed within the force at that time considerable scope for civilianisation. It was thought that that process would release police officers that the authority required for operational duties, by filling posts that were then inappropriately filled by police officers. The force was invited to undertake a thorough-going review of posts, so as to maximise its use of existing resources.
At the same time, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for the region in which Leicestershire lies wrote to the chief constable explaining the reason why the authority's application had not been approved. It is to the chief constable's great credit that his immediate response was to release over 70 police officers from desk jobs for operational duties.
I pause here to comment that, although I recognise that hon. Members feel that the increase to which I have already referred is not impressive in itself, added to the figure of 187 must be the number of officers released for operational duties as a result of civilianisation. That process lies very much within the spirit of the Home Office circular 114/83 on effectiveness and efficiency within the police service.
I turn to the most recent application we have received from Leicestershire police authority, and I shall try to explain the considerations that were in our minds. In January this year, the authority applied for 91 extra police officers, spread over three financial years. The proposal was that 45 would be recruited in 1988–89, 33 in 1989–90, and the remainder in 1990–91. The application was accompanied by a report from the chief constable. Again, to give him credit, he outlined proposals for achieving more operational officers through civilianisation and identified 82 posts that could be civilianised over three years.
As anybody in the Chamber will appreciate, that application from the authority, supported by the chief constable, was enthusiastically endorsed by those Members of Parliament who represent the county and who are present in the Chamber tonight. They have also corresponded with and spoken to Ministers, they have put down questions, and they have made direct representations in meetings with, for example, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Ferrers, who has direct and immediate responsibility for these matters in the Home Office.
It may be helpful if I make it clear that, when considering such applications, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must take into account a wide variety of factors. They inevitably include the particular policing problems in each area, the incidence of crime, the 174 police-population ratio, and the effectiveness with which each force's existing resources are being employed. Those are all important factors, but none of them is conclusive on its own.
It is important to consider the way in which a number of those criteria apply in the context of Leicestershire. I acknowledge at once that a number of the arguments put forward—for example, those deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton—are particularly powerful. However, they are not conclusive by themselves.
The police population ratio to which my hon. Friend alluded varied between 1980 and 1987 from one officer per 484 members of the population to one officer per 505. Excluding the Metropolitan and City police forces, the national average is 455. Nevertheless, that puts Leicestershire almost at mid-point of all forces outside London, because 17 had poorer ratios and 23 had better.
Offences and the rate of increase in the number of offences is another criterion to which a number of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, have alluded. Over the relevant period, offences grew by 31.2 per cent., which is slightly more than the average. However, in terms of offences per 100,000 of the population, the Leicestershire figure for 1987–5,817—is well below the average of 7,773. Therefore, while crime has increased, it has done so from a relatively low base. Again, the force is roughly in the middle—25 forces have higher levels of crime and 17 have lower.
In terms of offences cleared up, Leicestershire has a creditable rate of 44.7 per cent., which compares with a national average of 33.1 per cent. While clearly a force's achievements in that area are not to be used against it when considering its manpower needs, one cannot ignore the fact that those figures put Leicestershire at the top end, because 37 forces have had poorer clear-up levels.
I have dwelt on those facts because levels of crime have been argued in support of the Leicestershire application, which is understandable. However, it is right to emphasise that, while all those considerations are taken into account, none standing by itself is conclusive.
Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary was consulted on the merits of the latest Leicestershire application. advise my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, and Opposition Members, that this time round there was not the concern felt about civilianisation that there was on the previous occasion, because impressive steps have been taken in that connection, and all credit to the chief constable and his force for that. Nevertheless, in the light of the advice that has been received from the inspector, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that Leicestershire's application could not be given priority over other applications.
It has been explained to the police authority, and the chief constable—I repeat it again tonight—that Leicestershire's application was considered in the context of the programme of phased increases in police manpower which the Home Secretary announced in May 1986. The programme allows for total increases of 2,000 police posts for provincial police forces over four years, of which only 500 were available for 1988–89. Demand far exceeded what was available, so not all applications could be met this time around. However, the authority has been assured that its 175 application will be reconsidered when decisions are taken on the next tranche of posts to be approved under the programme.
I understand—it is entirely understandable—that the police authority is disappointed not to have received an allocation. My right hon. Friend the noble Lord Ferrers has therefore agreed to meet the police authority to hear its views on policing the county.
I should like to make a further point about resources and the Home Office circular. It is sometimes assumed that 176 the police authority need only satisfy specific criteria to meet the requirements and achieve the allocation. In fact, that is not the case. Although the criteria must be satisfied, it is inevitably a subjective judgment on where priorities lie. I recognise that that is very hard for individual forces to accept; it is also very hard for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make. My hon. Friend——
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.