HC Deb 01 November 1999 vol 337 cc6-10
4. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)

What representations he has received on retirement rates of police officers over the next three years. [94993]

10. Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

What estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will leave the police service over the next three years. [94999]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)

While I am not aware of receiving any formal representations on the retirement rates of police officers over the next three years, I frequently discuss aspects of this issue with the police associations.

Given the uncertainty as to the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds, or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons, precise projections of wastage of police officers in the future are very difficult to make. The number of officers who left the service during the past three years for any reason was about 17,000.

Hon. Members will want to be aware of papers and calculations that I presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday last. Those suggest that the police service was likely to recruit 15,000 officers over the next three years, to which the 5,000 recruits to be funded from the crime-fighting fund would be additional.

Mr. Amess

When the Home Secretary announced 5,000 extra recruits, despite contrary advice from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, why did he not even touch on the subject of the retirement of police officers, so that the general public could receive an accurate picture? Is the Home Secretary aware that the residents of my constituency of Southend, West think that he is soft on crime because he does not provide enough police officers to fight crime?

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

What happened to Basildon?

Mr. Straw

It was a Labour gain. I wish the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) well in my home county.

My speech to the Labour party conference was entirely accurate as to the effect of the 5,000 officers being additional—the inaccuracy was that the baseline information that I provided was 4,000 too low. [Interruption.] I understand why Conservative Members are laughing—their fox has been shot. The simple truth is that, during the past three years, wastage has been running at 17,000, and the overall effect of the figures that I have now accurately presented is that there should be 20,000 additional recruits over the next three years. The effect of that should be that overall police numbers increase.

I acknowledge that, for reasons related to the police funding formula, Essex police have done less well than have some other forces. However, I hope that—not least because of that—the chief constable and the police authority of Essex will apply for the additional new money that is available under the crimefighting fund.

Mr. Garnier

Let us have it straight from the Home Secretary. By the end of this Parliament, will there be more or fewer police officers than there were at its beginning?

Mr. Straw

I hope very much that there will be more. However, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, and all on the Conservative Benches who were Members of the House before 2 May 1997, that under an Act for which they voted, but which we voted against, the power of the Home Secretary to set police numbers was removed by law.

I further remind the hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope that he makes this point in his constituency—that we are providing extra new money, next year: £35 million over and above the comprehensive spending review. We shall provide further new money in the following year. The money on which those sums are based was money that he and his colleagues damned as being reckless and irresponsible. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways—saying in their constituencies that expenditure on the police should rise, while voting in the House for lower police expenditure.

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)

What progress has my right hon. Friend made to prevent the early retirement of police officers who face disciplinary charges?

Mr. Straw

Under arrangements that I announced last year, and which came into force on 1 April this year, major changes have been made in the overall disciplinary arrangements for police officers. We also expect chief officers—and they have agreed—to enforce a long-standing but rather ignored rule, which required chief officers not to allow any officer to retire through ill health if disciplinary proceedings against him were pending. I am sure that that has the approbation of the whole House.

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to review pension arrangements for officers retiring prematurely due to ill health, who, immediately or subsequently, take up alternative, full-time employment?

Mr. Straw

There is a major issue to do with the way in which the police service conducts its scrutiny of those applying for medical retirement through ill health. We all accept that some police officers who have run into problems of ill health or sickness, or—which is worse—have been injured while on duty, should be retired and should receive a generous pension. However, at present, there are also some officers, who, in each case, have passed medical scrutiny and are retired on ill-health grounds, but who bring the rules into disrepute by taking full-time, remunerative employment straight after their retirement.

We have set clear targets for police forces to reduce the proportion of officers who retire through ill health and I am pleased to say that those targets are working, as are the associated efforts being made by the police service to reduce sickness day by day. The work done in the past year by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tackle the issue of sickness has released 500 additional officers for front-line operational duties.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

May I pursue the question of police numbers and funding? When answering last week's debate, the Home Secretary said that it was his "wish, hope and expectation" that, from the end of this financial year and for the next three years, there will be more police officers on duty than there would otherwise have been next year. Is he now saying that, taking the number of police officers at the beginning of this Parliament—since when that number has decreased by more than 1,000 in England and Wales—the Government plan that there should be more police officers by the end of the Parliament? Will he also give a commitment, not only that there will be more officers, but that, in real terms and after paying pensions, the allocation of money to local forces to spend on police will increase? In short, will there be more officers and more money in real terms to pay for them?

Mr. Straw

What I said last week was a statement of fact: it is my hope and expectation that there should be more police officers at the end of the three-year period about which we are talking than at the beginning of it. The hon. Gentleman asks me to make a prediction based on the date of the next general election, but that could take place tomorrow, next year or the year after, and it is that which determines the duration of this Parliament. Because of that and because wastage rates are uncertain, I cannot make such a prediction. However, Labour's record will be infinitely better than that of the Conservatives, who, from 1992 to 1997, presided over year-by-year decreases in officer numbers, despite their promise that officer numbers would increase.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)

Having received from the Home Secretary no satisfactory explanation as to the lines of communication between him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, may I ask him to comment on the lines of communication between him and Lord Bassam, who is Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department and who has responsibility for the police? As late as last Thursday, Lord Bassam continued to claim in another place that there would be 11,000 recruits over the next three years, to which 5,000 would be added, making a total of 16,000, not 20,000 as mentioned by the Home Secretary today. What is going on in the Home Office?

Mr. Straw

It is business as usual in the Home Office—and the right hon. Lady has every reason to know about that. We did not fight the election on a manifesto promising that life would be perfect in the Home Office after 2 May 1997, but I have to say that life there is a lot better than it was before that date. If she wants to exchange numbers on occasional errors, I have to tell her that her score is already far higher than mine. As for the right hon. Lady's question, I had not caught up with the matter to which she refers. However, we all know that the other place is rather old fashioned and that news takes a little time to reach it.

Miss Widdecombe

Do I gather from that that the right hon. Gentleman not only failed to communicate to his Minister the correct state of affairs as he saw it, but that his Minister failed to communicate to him that he had not received that information and had made incorrect statements?

Mr. Straw

If I were at the Dispatch Box in opposition, I would make better use of it than does the right hon. Lady. I have given her an explanation.

Miss Widdecombe

You do not like the facts.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. Lady knows that I dislike the fact that there was an error in the original figures I gave, not least because it led to the most outrageous claims that I had tried to mislead the Labour party conference and the public, which I had not done. [Interruption.] I have given the facts. Our best estimate was that the police service would recruit at least 15,000 officers in the next five years, but we found new money to allow it to recruit 5,000 additional officers. That contrasts with the false promises of the right hon. Lady who, on 29 January 1997, promised 5,000 extra police officers while presiding over a continual decline in the number of officers. Our additional money will be ring-fenced. As the right hon. Lady has damned the current level of spending on the police service as reckless, does she welcome the additional funding that I have secured from the Treasury?

Miss Widdecombe

I will pass over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will pass over the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about his patent failure to communicate with his Ministers regarding his own announcements, and ask the Home Secretary to comment on the statement of Sir Paul Condon, who said that he shared public unease in respect of policing during the state visit of the President of China". If Sir Paul shares public unease, one must conclude that he did not issue instructions or make suggestions to the police regarding that visit. If the Metropolitan Police Commissioner did not do that, who did?

Mr. Straw

I have already explained to the right hon. Lady, as I did to the Select Committee, that neither I nor any Home Office Minister or—as I have now ascertained—Home Office official was involved in any briefing of the Metropolitan police service before the state visit and the associated demonstrations. I have also made it clear that there was briefing by Foreign Office officials.

I commend the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as I fully support the way in which he and his officers policed a very difficult and delicate situation. Once again, the police found themselves, on the one hand, having to ensure the safety of the President of China and his party and of our royal family while, on the other hand, ensuring that they gave proper effect to the right to demonstrate peacefully. I support the Police Commissioner and his officers in their action, and I hope very much that the right hon. Lady does, too.