HC Deb 19 November 1992 vol 214 cc394-6
2. Mr. David Nicholson

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Police Federation to discuss the pay and conditions of police officers.

7. Mr. Mackinlay

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Sheehy inquiry.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I last met representatives of the Police Federation on 28 September. We discussed a number of matters, including the Sheehy inquiry which I have asked to report to me by the end of May 1993.

Mr. Nicholson

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Police Federation represents the thin blue line which, even in Avon and Somerset, stands between the community and a rising tide of crime, including drug abuse. Is he aware that, at a recent meeting in my constituency with representatives of the Police Federation, I found that they were concerned about his proposal, on which we still await details, to take away from the police the registration and processing of applications for firearms certificates? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think carefully about that? Is he aware that for rural districts I believe that the police are the best people to consider who should and should not be trusted with firearms? In particular will he give an assurance to the House that he will not allow the manufacturers and retailers of firearms to have any influence over the processing of firearms certificates?

Mr. Clarke

Of course, I realise that the Police Federation is a responsible organisation, as was shown by its welcome to the Sheehy inquiry and its recent recognition of the need to accept a 1.5 per cent. pay restraint on behalf of its members in the interests of helping to revive the national economy. We are out to consultation on the issue of whether we should have a civilian firearms board and have not yet reached a conclusion. I am attracted by the idea of a civilian firearms board as it would release police officers for more direct policing responsibilities, but we need to recruit the necessary experts onto the board. I have not yet made a decision and I shall bear in mind submissions from the Police Federation in Somerset before I reach a conclusion.

Mr. Mackinlay

Is the Home Secretary aware of the continuing anxiety among police officers that the setting up of the Sheehy committee of inquiry may prejudice their pay and conditions of service? Will he reiterate to the House the categorical assurance that he gave to the Police Federation at its conference in May that the Sheehy inquiry will in no way alter or jeopardise the pay or other conditions of service of police officers in England and Wales, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Clarke

I certainly gave no assurance in those terms. I said that the time had come to have such an inquiry into pay, terms and conditions of service, rank structure and other factors within the police force. The Edmund-Davies arrangements served their purpose extremely well, and the Government implemented them. The arrangements had a dramatic effect on the pay and recruitment of police in the 1980s. The Edmund-Davies arrangements have fulfilled their purpose, and the Sheehy inquiry is taking a fresh approach to settling the pay, terms and conditions of policemen in order to produce an effective, efficient and well-motivated force for the 1990s.

Mr. Shersby

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, following his speech to the Police Federation conference in May this year, a warm welcome was given to his remarks about working with police officers and ensuring that they were properly paid for the dangerous job that they do? When responding to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech the chairman of the federation made it clear that the federation welcomed the establishment of the Sheehy inquiry as the federation had been calling for many years for an inquiry by means of a royal commission into the terms and conditions of the police.

Mr. Clarke

That is exactly so. My hon. Friend was at the conference, and he and I remember the occasion well. The Police Federation made an extremely responsible and forthcoming response stating that it welcomed the inquiry and accepted the need to look at issues such as fair share of rewards for responsibilities, rank structures and other factors. The Police Federation has been submitting constructive evidence to that inquiry and we all await its outcome in May next year.

Mr. Blair

Is not the real problem that the police—like everyone else—face soaring levels of crime? Three times as many crimes are committed as are recorded, and there are 15 million crimes a year in Britain. Does not the Home Secretary recognise that, instead of the changes becoming an excuse for the Government to pass the buck to the police, the Government and Ministers have the responsibility to produce a strategy to cut crime and make our community safe?

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman has the figures slightly wrong. There is nothing new about more crime being committed. There has been no change under any Government for centuries, when more crimes have been committed than reported. There is a maze of fairly useless criminal statistics and we are trying to make them clearer. If we consider the "British Crime Survey", the only accurate guide to the level of crime, we see that crime has—I accept—risen by about 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. We are suffering the same experience as every other developed society—rising criminality occurs in the richer and more developed countries of the world, particularly in western Europe and northern America. The Government respond by having an efficient and effective police force that they support, and by introducing reforms to the criminal justice law to keep it up to date and reforms to the prison system. We shall have and maintain an extremely effective policy on protecting the country against the problem of rising criminality.