HC Deb 02 December 1999 vol 340 cc531-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

7 pm

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

Good evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is kind of you to stay for this debate.

I start with a positive and absolute statement, which I hope can be accepted by all. It is that, wherever one lives, one has the same right to the full and proper protection of the police authority. In other words, whether one lives in the country or in a sparsely populated area of the country, one has the right to the same expectation of police protection as those who live in an urban area or in a city.

That being so, I want to express the deep concern of many who live in the countryside and of the police force whose responsibility it is to deal with crime in the countryside, and to show that the cost of policing sparsely populated areas has been made clear to the Home Office, not just by my chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, but by 13 other police authorities—those of Cambridge, Cumbria, Dyfed Powys, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, West Mercia and Wiltshire.

I will show that, whereas the Government claim to be flexible and modern, they are not; whereas they claim to react sensibly to logical argument, they do not; whereas they claim to care about and to understand the problems of the countryside, most palpably they do not; whereas they talk of open Government, it is fake since they refuse to publish a Home Office report, thereby turning it into a secret document.

Let me start at the beginning. I was alerted by a letter—dated 16 September from the 14 police authorities to which I have just referred—to the Home Office on the impact of the cost of the provision of police services in rural areas. It states: the rural police authorities have argued that they were disadvantaged because of insufficient recognition of the extra costs incurred by sparsity. As a result, most Police Authorities have suffered reductions in Police Officers. Some of these Authorities are facing considerable criticism from rural localities because of a lack of a 'police presence'. It goes on to say: the latest report on sparsity provides conclusive evidence that it results in additional policing costs and recommends an adjustment to the funding formula"— and that is even though the cost of patrol has been excluded from the figures.

The Minister should know that your predecessors, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who went from your job to the Cabinet—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is gently straying away from parliamentary language.

Sir Peter Emery

I thought that I was saying that the Minister's predecessors, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who went from the Home Office to the Cabinet—I wish the Minister the hope of such a promotion—and the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), Minister of State, Home Office, who has also been promoted, both stated that they would respond positively to the findings of the national research on sparsity.

Thus I was sufficiently worried to write a letter to the Home Secretary on 5 October. It stated: The costing of this area of policing I believe is not fully calculated in the funding formula. I asked the Home Secretary whether he would examine that problem, irrespective of previous views on the matter. I believed that my letter was reasonable and I hoped for a positive response.

On 20 October, I received a reply, which stated: There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula. The letter continued: the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question which is beyond dispute or challenge. That is a rather optimistic goal in any political matter. I shall return to that point later. The letter went on: There is also the matter of the three-year freeze on changes to the funding formulae announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.

I subsequently learned that the Home Office report showed that if the sparsity factor in Devon and Cornwall is taken into account, £3.6 million extra should be paid to that authority because of the vast rural area that the police have to cover. I wonder whether I can ask the old Cholmeleian as a former Highgate councillor for seven years to confirm the figure and not to sidestep the question?

I wrote another letter to the Home Secretary, which stated: I have read with considerable care your letter of October 20th…You will not be surprised…to learn that it did not give me any of the assurances which are necessary for policing in rural areas.

I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's introduction of facts that had nothing to do with rural areas—for example: The £1.24 billion extra money will do little to help police expenditure in line with increases in pay and pensions and the cost of living over the three year period". The money will not cover all that. My letter continued: The funding for 5,000 new police officers is not to increase establishments by an extra 5,000 men, but will with luck just replace the drastic fall in officers now being felt by most forces".

A reference in the Home Secretary's letter to £50 million towards the new national radio communications system sounds marvellous but is inadequate because it will leave between £700 million and £950 million to be found by local police authorities, probably through cutting personnel. My letter went on: Now turning to the main reason for my original enquiry. I wrote because I am certain that urban and city police authorities will always find reason for objecting to money for the extra cost of rural policing. There would never be a single view, which the Home Secretary seemed to want. I asked him: how can one overcome the factual agreement that a 'sparsity factor' does actually exist"? Everyone accepts its existence. The Government tried to mitigate that by saying: the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question which is beyond dispute or challenge". However, as I made clear: there will never be an answer that is 'beyond dispute or challenge'". That is a civil servant's phrase and represents a "Yes, Minister" approach of doing nothing.

My letter continued: I am also massively concerned with what appears to me to be a further let-out for no action. I went on: You say, 'there is also the matter of the three-year freeze on changes to the funding formulae announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. We hope to announce details of how the police funding formula will operate in relation to next year's financial settlement shortly.' Therefore, unless you accept the need to include within the new formula aspects of the cost of rural sparsity, further delay is guaranteed. That, I believe, is unacceptable.

It is interesting to note, however, that at that time—without my knowledge—a letter was being written by and on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making two particular points: You will recall the time scale for consultation was relatively short". It added that a number of chief police officers felt that, in composing the ACPO response to the report, the strongly held views of a number of Forces that present funding arrangements take insufficient account of the costs of delivering effective police services to communities in thinly populated areas had not been sufficiently taken into account. Most interestingly, it went on to say that the Chief Constables' Council…while still conscious of the concern of those Forces with high intensity policing areas which might expect to lose grant if greater account is taken of sparsity factors resolved that the urgency of the needs of those Forces affected by sparsity is such that the Report's recommendations on adjusting the mechanism for calculating grant on the basis of sparsity factors should be implemented without further delay. Those are the people who the Home Office suggested could never come to an agreement, but here they are—making a direct reference to the Home Office and the director of the police policy directorate—saying that action should be taken.

In answer to a written question, the Home Secretary states: I understand the wishes of rural police forces to see the research findings implemented. Before doing so the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question, which is beyond dispute or challenge. However, all our chief constables are saying that the answer is beyond dispute or challenge. What greater evidence can the Home Secretary have? He goes on to say: Our present intention is that, subject to consultation…we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution, or revenue support grant distribution, generally for 2000–01."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. [18W.] There will be no substantive change in the operation of the police funding formula for the next year. That is massively disappointing.

The chief constable of Devon and Cornwall wrote to me and made a point that is most relevant in all this consideration: The research into the impact of sparsity was commenced well before the moratorium was introduced", and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore it should at least be arguable—and positively the case, I believe—that the changes should not be caught up by that moratorium. However, retrenchment by the Home Office continues. On 22 November, in the last paragraph of his letter, the Home Secretary says that we propose to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. As you know, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a three-year freeze on changes to SSA funding formulae pending the wide ranging review of the revenue support grant system across local government. In view of the moratorium, the Home Secretary has decided that it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution next year.

What does all this show? It shows that, as I have suggested, the Government have been entirely inflexible. They have refused to act, not just in response to logical argument but to deal with proven injustice. No modern government there. They will not publish the secret report, and that, too, does not betoken open government. As for overcoming the problem of crime in the countryside, the Government are turning a blind eye—or else they just do not give a damn for country folk.

The situation is not acceptable, and it must be overcome. The sparsity factor with respect to the cost of providing police services in so many parts of the country must be not just recognised but acted on, and acted on smartly.

7.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on securing the debate, and on raising what I agree is a very important question. Although my constituency is urban, it is located in a rural county, the county of Norfolk, and I am well aware of sparsity questions that are constantly put to me by my police authority and my chief constable.

The issues of rural crime and policing have been raised here in earlier Adjournment debates—most recently on 19 October, by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—and in other debates on crime. The Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with police and local authorities, can deal with crime issues in the context of partnership.

I accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman's opening comment that it is important for every citizen to feel secure in regard to these issues, and to be treated equally. That is an important principle of our national life; the right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight it, and the Government adhere to it. I shall say more about that shortly.

We believe that partnerships, and the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—I shall say more about that shortly as well—have proved to be a means of developing effective partnerships on the ground, reducing the impact of crime and the fear of crime. However, I want to set the debate in the context of the issue of crime and the policing of rural areas more generally. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that I met his chief constable— and a number of other chief constables—in his capacity as president of ACPO, at a very pleasant dinner on Tuesday evening in London. We discussed some of the issues in—how shall I say?—a friendly and comradely way. Perhaps "comradely" is not the appropriate word, but we engaged in a positive and constructive exchange.

Sir Peter Emery

Is the Minister saying that the chief constable enjoyed the dinner?

Mr. Clarke

He did—and we paid for it, so he should have enjoyed it. Anyway, we had a very useful exchange.

The latest Audit Commission figures show 59 crimes per 1,000 of population in Devon and Cornwall. That is significantly below the national average of 78 crimes for every 1,000. The number of burglaries per 1,000 dwellings is 12, compared with the national figure of 20. In its policing plan for 1999–2000, the police authority said: The people of Devon and Cornwall live in one of the most crime free areas of the United Kingdom. Improved detection rates and falling crime figures…ensure that the South West rightly has the reputation as one of the safest places in Britain to live and work. Those are not the words of a Minister; they are the words of the police authority.

According to the most recent figures, during the 12 months to March 1999 there was a 4.7 per cent. reduction in crime in Devon and Cornwall—some 4,300 fewer offences. That compares with a 1.4 per cent. reduction nationally. I do not suggest that there is no cause for concern in Devon and Cornwall; I am merely saying that the area has a good record.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)

Does the Minister realise that, in the country, it takes a policeman a very long time to travel from the station to the scene of a crime? In the case of a night-time burglary, it may take half an hour or three quarters of an hour, in marked contrast to the time that it takes in inner cities.

Mr. Clarke

Of course I appreciate that. It is a real point. I will come to it in referring to the research report.

Devon and Cornwall's budget this year of £175.9 million showed an increase of 5 per cent. over the previous year—the sixth largest budget increase among all the police authorities. I was not going to mention it, but, additionally, the Government recognised the pressures on policing the eclipse of the sun in August. The Home Secretary approved a special grant of up to £520,000 to deal with those costs. We knew that not even Devon and Cornwall could evade the forces of nature that meant that the eclipse took place there.

In 1999–2000, Devon and Cornwall will spend an estimated £112.30 per head of population, compared with the shire county average of £114.5 per person. A succession of above average funding increases for Devon and Cornwall has reduced the gap between the force's spending per person and the shire county average.

On Thursday, the Home Secretary announced that the Government proposed to increase Government funding for Devon and Cornwall for the next year by 2.6 per cent. Of course, the police authority will decide how to deal with the matter generally. That is all I intend to say specifically about Devon and Cornwall. I come to the sparsity arguments that the right hon. Member for East Devon fairly raised.

Not only am I familiar with the issues as a Norfolk Member, but, earlier this year, I met a delegation from the police authorities that are directly affected—the group that the right hon. Member for East Devon mentioned—to discuss and to consider the issues in some detail. I acknowledge those issues.

Here is the so-called secret report. I have it in my hand. There is no secret report on which the Home Secretary has been sitting. In April 1998, the Home Office commissioned a research study. The right hon. Member for East Devon might have been slightly more graceful. He could have congratulated the Government on setting up the study, which was never commissioned in detail over the 18 years of the last Conservative Government, to establish the position. It might have been gracious to acknowledge that we had gone ahead with it.

Earlier this year, the report was finalised. It found that additional costs were involved in policing sparsely populated rural areas for precisely the reasons to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) referred. The report was not about police numbers; it was about the additional costs involved in policing rural areas.

The report recommended that the police funding formula should be changed to reflect those additional costs—that some funding should be switched from metropolitan forces and allocated to shire county forces. There is no reference in the report to claims that an extra £3.6 million would come to Devon and Cornwall through such a formula. Other figures have been bandied about for other authorities. In response to the specific request by the right hon. Member for East Devon to clarify the matter, I cannot confirm that the report states that Devon and Cornwall will receive an extra £3.6 million.

Sir Peter Emery

The Minister will realise that, under House procedure, as the report has been laid on the Table, it will be placed in the Library for us all to see.

Mr. Clarke

I was coming to that.

On 21 July 1999, a copy of the executive summary of the report was sent to all police authorities in England and Wales, so that they could all have access to the data. A copy of the full report and the executive summary was sent to the House of Commons Library earlier this week. It is in the Library for the right hon. Gentleman and any of his colleagues to examine its detail. I understand his point, but we were there a little before him in looking at the issues.

In a parliamentary written answer on 2 November, the Home Secretary announced that he did not intend to make changes to the police funding formula for 2000–01 for the reason that the right hon. Member for East Devon stated. In July 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a three-year freeze on changes to the SSA funding formula, pending a wide-ranging review of the revenue support grant system throughout local government.

In view of that moratorium, the Home Secretary decided, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, that it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. I acknowledge that that has been disappointing to the forces where sparsity is a significant factor; that is a fair argument for the right hon. Member for East Devon and others to make. I confirm that we will fully consider the position in the next round, taking into account a number of reforms that need to be considered, including sparsity. However, the needs of police forces with sparsely populated areas are already taken into account in the funding formula. A sparsity element accounts for about 0.5 per cent.—about £35 million—of funding. The report examines whether that is enough.

The Government are addressing the issue of police numbers constructively. On 30 September, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a new crime fighting fund, part of which will be used to recruit 5,000 police officers in addition to the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years. Some £35 million of new money, not in the comprehensive spending review settlement, is to be allocated to meet the costs in 2000–01 under the challenge fund.

Today, we published our guidelines for forces to apply for resources from the fund. I shall not detain the House by going through all the criteria, but forces are specifically requested to supply information to support the size of their bid, including details on issues such as tackling crime hot spots and innovative proposals addressing the need to put more officers on front-line duties. The needs of rural areas should be considered in the bids.

I am not in a position to know what bids will be made by what authorities, but I should be very surprised if the Devon and Cornwall authority and others, including my own, for which sparsity is a factor do not take the opportunity of bidding for some of the new money to argue that the costs of policing rural areas should be reflected. Although we do not have any proposals on sparsity in the current spending round, the guidelines are significant.

I need to clarify something that I said earlier. There are exemplary tables in the document with figures, including the £3.6 million, but there is no Government commitment to the tables. The figures do not show the precise amount that will come through. They are useful for debate on the development of the issues.

Our approach to the issues and the guidelines for the new money are positive and constructive. I should like to conclude by emphasising the virtue of partnership. Rural communities have different needs from urban ones. Many police forces covering large rural areas have mounted initiatives to tackle crime there. The allocation of police resources is an operational matter for chief constables, but we believe that the most effective response is through the partnership approach, which is at the core of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the new crime reduction partnerships.

There have been some positive developments in the partnership approach. Some crimes are particular to the countryside, including the theft of livestock and farm equipment and threats of violence from the activities of animal rights activities. There are also concerns that crime is being displaced from urban areas, with criminals from elsewhere going into rural areas. Those are legitimate concerns.

In areas where the partnership approach has been taken forward, positive ideas have been developed. For example, there are 35 different watch schemes along the lines of neighbourhood watch, including farm, horse, country and even poacher watch schemes. Such schemes are directly relevant to rural areas. There are more than 500 farm watch schemes across England and Wales to combat rural crime.

We are glad that this important matter has been raised. Through resources and partnership, the Government are fighting rural crime and will continue to succeed in their aim.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.