HC Deb 10 February 2000 vol 344 cc501-8

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

7.2 pm

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

I want to examine how the Government are supporting the Lincolnshire police, which is a subject of importance and interest to the people of Lincolnshire. The first duty of any Government is to protect the people and ensure that they enjoy their freedom under the law, safe in their own homes and on the streets. The burden on the Government is to ensure that, within necessarily limited resources, all parts of the country, urban and rural, are given a fair deal on public services, including the police.

The facts speak for themselves: Lincolnshire does not get a fair deal on police funding. That is not party rhetoric. It is based firmly on the facts. Lincolnshire covers about 2,800 square miles, with a population of 620,000. By area it is the fifth largest police force in England. The population is evenly and widely dispersed over 504 parishes. During the summer months there is an influx of tourists heading towards the coast. The population is disproportionately elderly. One in five will over be 65 by 2007. The fear of crime is particularly high among the elderly. In rural areas, burglary—the cruel invasion of one's home that is particularly upsetting to older people— is a real problem.

Sadly, Lincolnshire is in the third quartile nationally for burglary. Rural villages suffer from vandalism and petty theft. Villagers demand a greater police presence which cannot currently be delivered. The standard spending assessment—what the Government think that Lincolnshire should spend on the police—is £62.6 million. If the police authority agreed to spend at that figure, we would have between 150 and 200 fewer police officers and policing in Lincolnshire would be in crisis. The police authority breaks the limit, spending £69.7 million, which is 11.3 per cent, more.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that between March and September 1999 the number of officers in Lincolnshire fell by 29. He will be further aware that between April 1997 and the end of 1999, there was a total fall in numbers of about 40 officers. Does not that suggest that we need the Government to introduce the sparsity factor into the formula, as recommended by their independent consultants?

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because he has raised that issue on several occasions and made some important points about manpower in the Lincolnshire police force. I will come back to that subject in a moment.

The result of the overspend above SSA is inevitable. It means that Lincolnshire people pay more than people elsewhere, and they get less. That is our central problem. Lincolnshire's council tax at band D is £81, compared with the standard council tax of £50. We are top of the league in levels of council tax, but pay in our area is often low compared with national rates.

For all that the council tax is high, we still suffer from poor levels of policing. The population is served by just one police officer for every 535 people, which is one of the poorest ratios in the country. There are just 1.97 officers per hectare, compared to a national average of 8.25. In plain speak, Lincolnshire police are overstretched and undermanned. They have to chase their tails over a huge area.

Gillian Merron (Lincoln)

I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a couple of brief points. First, Lincolnshire has seen—I am delighted to say—the biggest decrease in crime in the east midlands. Secondly, the chief constable, Richard Childs, said only last month that one of the best ways to explain that reduction is the hard work put into multi-agency efforts to tackle crime and the causes of crime. Does not Lincolnshire's record show that the Government have set a winning formula with Lincolnshire's police?

Mr. Leigh

I am glad that the hon. Lady mentions the chief constable. I am also delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who takes a keen interest in these matters, is now in his place.

The chief constable has made it clear that he supports our campaign to increase the funding formula because he thinks that it is unfair. We hope that the hon. Lady will join that campaign. Of course I welcome a fall in recorded crime, but it is still too high. When I talked to the mayor of Gainsborough last week, his view was that in certain areas it is so difficult to get a quick police response that people often do not report crime, and that is something that greatly concerns him.

In 1998–99, Lincolnshire received the lowest police grant per head of population. That is worrying. The Minister may argue when he replies that the Home Secretary's crime fighting bids are the answer to our problems, and of course we welcome 41 extra police officers. However, the real issue is that the formula used by the Government in working out the grant is simply unfair. It does not take adequate account of the sparsity factor and the rural nature of our county.

In any event, the 1,000 extra police officers that were announced do not make up for the 1,700 officers lost nationally since the general election. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear earlier, we have also lost police officers in Lincolnshire. The Government's announcement yesterday will not solve the problem. The chief constable, my hon. Friends and the police authority agree with me, but more importantly that is also the view of the report that the Government commissioned into the problem. The ORH report provides conclusive evidence of the additional costs placed on Lincolnshire and recommends an adjustment to the formula. If that was implemented, Lincolnshire's SSA would immediately rise by £2.2 million.

Successive Labour Ministers have promised that they would respond to the findings of their research. First, it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—now the ex-First Minister in Wales— when he was the Minister responsible. Then the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he was the Minister responsible, promised that the Government would implement the report. He said that the recognition of the significance of sparsity as an effective needs formula drew support from both sides of the House. We want to know that the Minister now accepts the conclusion of the Government's report.

It gets worse. The research was delayed by the Government in 1997 owing to an alleged lack of funds, despite an offer from the rural authorities to fund the report. Ministers now say that they cannot implement the report because they have conveniently imposed a moratorium, or freeze, on changing the funding formula for the police. However, this unilateral freeze was imposed after the research commenced, and the results were originally promised for the current year's settlement for 1999–2000. As such, they would not have been affected by the moratorium. There is no case for not implementing this report, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will do so. If we do not implement the report, matters will get worse.

I have talked so far about figures. Let me give a few examples of what is happening locally. The call centre in Lincoln is not working adequately—I visited it. Police constables are having to be taken away from other duties to man it. Despite reassurances about the police station in Gainsborough, people are not convinced. It is supposed to stay open until 9 o'clock, but often it is not. I visited a company which had a problem. The director of Impaq Ltd tells me: On my way home, I called the main Gainsborough Police station just to let them know that there was a gang of youths loitering on private property. Unfortunately the place was closed at 7.55pm! There has also been a problem with vandalism in the churchyard. Very worryingly, there is a hide, and there has been talk of vigilantes in the town. Nobody condones that sort of behaviour, but when the police presence declines to such an extent and people start talking about vigilantes, that is really worrying. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what people are saying.

We have written to a number of parish councils. This is a typical comment from Hemswell Cliff parish council: One parishioner commented that after reporting a burglary in progress at out buildings at their property, it was some 50 minutes before the police arrived, by which time the offenders had fled. The officer apologised for the delay, but stated that they were the only patrol car covering the whole of the Gainsborough area and had been despatched from Lincoln. That is the constituency of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). Sometimes, in my constituency, in that enormous area stretching from the boundary close to Grimsby in the north-east right down to Market Rasen, there may be only one police officer on duty, or one car roaming around. It simply is not good enough.

In the 120 square miles covering Keelby, Great Limber, Riby, Caistor, North Kelsey and South Kelsey, Nettleton, Grasby, Searby and Bigby, when the Caistor police constable is off duty, there is just one back-up. Gainsborough town centre has a very good beat officer, but only one, and she also doubles helping with murder inquiries in Lincoln. If there is a murder in the county, she goes—we do not see her again. One could go on giving examples.

In conclusion, the whole county is asking the Government to do the decent thing and recognise the conclusions of their own report. They must recognise that the population of Lincolnshire is evenly spread across that vast county, and that the police simply cannot do the job on the money that they are given. We want action, and we want it today.

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on obtaining this debate on police funding in Lincolnshire. In a way, it is his second bite at the cherry. When the debate was scheduled for 25 January in Westminster Hall, he was so preoccupied to ensure that the leader of his party was not vulnerable in Prime Minister's questions that he wanted to knock out the next day's business. He therefore spoke in the debate on the Floor of the House, so we lost the debate on this subject. However, I am glad to have this chance to debate it now.

The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on Thursday 3 February. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised important issues affecting police funding for Lincolnshire police during that debate, and I appreciate the way in which he raised them.

Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised by hon. Members in the Chamber in previous Adjournment debates, most recently by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December and in other debates on crime. It is a genuine issue, and I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) takes it.

I should put on the record Lincolnshire's current funding position. For 2000–01, funding will be £65.4 million—an increase of 3.3 per cent, over the previous year, and higher than the national average of 2.8 per cent. In 1999–2000, the force's funding increased by 4.4 per cent., which again compares well with the national average of 2.5 per cent. There have been two years of above-average increases in Government funding for Lincolnshire. That is a good result for Lincolnshire police and the people of Lincolnshire, and it is more than many other forces received. I, like the hon. Gentleman, pay tribute to the chief constable for advancing his case, but I pay tribute too to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has pressed that case hard in both public and private representations.

Government funding is not the whole picture. It is for the police authority to decide on its final budget, along with any corresponding increase in council tax, but there is scope for the police authority to increase spending power next year by asking council tax payers to contribute more, and we are all familiar with the political judgments and trade-offs that exist in that regard.

The police increase of precept on council tax last year was 3.9 per cent.—the second lowest in England and Wales at a time when many forces took decisions that went the other way. When, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, I discussed education with the leader of Lincolnshire county council last year, we discussed the matter at some length. Issues remain to be discussed openly, involving, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, Government funding, but also involving decisions taken by the police authority about the appropriate precepting regime.

In 1999–2000, Lincolnshire will spend an estimated £111 per head of population compared with an average for the shire counties of £114.50 per head of population. That figure is slightly lower than the national average, but I would argue that it is not significantly so. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with the police and local authorities, can address the issues of crime within the context of partnership. In Lincolnshire, as in many other parts of the country, partnerships can mobilise the resources of the community at every level in order to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending.

Many rural communities throughout the country have welcomed the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which institutionalised effective partnerships on the ground and ensured that people could work together effectively. Many partnerships in Lincolnshire seek to develop in a variety of ways and the Government; wjsh to do all we can to help.

The effect of all that on crime in Lincolnshire was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln in her intervention. In general, there has been good news for Lincolnshire. In the 12 months to 1999—according to the most recent published figures—crime fell by 2.3 per cent, bucking the national increase of 2.2 per cent. That is a tribute to the police and the local communities and partnerships that have worked hard to reduce crime. The percentage change translates into an average of 7,496 crimes per 100,000 population in Lincolnshire, which is significantly below the national average of 9,984.

I do not want to suggest any sense of complacency. We continue actively to discuss the targeting regime and appropriate procedures to drive down crime further. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the debate, it is a good time to pay tribute to everyone in Lincolnshire who has played a part in ensuring that it is relatively free of crime in comparison with other parts of the country and is continuing to drive crime down.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

The Minister is an able and competent man who takes his duties seriously. I am sure that he will not wish to use the limited time available to us as a result of the admirable initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) without addressing the central point of the debate. That is that police funding in England is based on the standard spending assessment system, under which Lincolnshire is structurally underfunded because there is no recognition of the county's sparsity. We have the greatest sparsity of any county in England, and the distribution of population is unusually evenly spread. That means much higher costs for delivering any given level of police service, yet as the Minister has acknowledged, we have the lowest funding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order.

Mr. Clarke

As always, I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. When we served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, I was well aware of his ability to make powerful and effective points at some length—as he has just done.

The next point in my speaking notes is headed "Sparsity". I do not think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough attended the debate on the police grant— unlike his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—so he may not be aware that I dealt with sparsity at some length on that occasion, as I intend to do in this debate.

I understand the disappointment that we did not implement the recommendations of the research report on the cost of policing of rural areas. Recently, I met a delegation of representatives from the rural authorities, led by Lincolnshire, and which included my Norfolk authority. The authority that polices my constituency is one of those affected by the sparsity formula. I discussed the matter in great detail, and I pay tribute to the role of the chairman of the Lincolnshire police authority in co-ordinating that group.

Last Thursday, in the debate on the police grant, I mentioned the role of the chairman. He wrote to me asking what I was referring to. I told him that I was concerned about the way in which the Lincolnshire police authority had raised the issue of sparsity in a press release. That press release was intended to be on behalf of the rural authorities affected by sparsity, but several representatives from such authorities—notably from Northamptonshire—said that it did not speak for them.

My advice to everyone prosecuting the sparsity debate is to do so according to the genuine merit of their case. I emphasise that point. The debate should not involve party political point scoring. Some police authorities are in strong Labour areas—others are in strong Conservative areas. Members of Parliament from all parts of the country advance arguments in what is a legitimate and fair debate, but it is not right to make it a party political one, as I tried to point out.

During the summer, the findings of the research report on policing rural areas were considered by a Home Office-led group, including representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities. Various views were expressed and there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough correctly pointed out during his speech.

The Government understand that rural police authorities, such as Lincolnshire, will want those research findings to be implemented. However, we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities to plan ahead—for the reason given by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in his intervention. We need to ensure that the whole SSA system is right.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is conducting a review of the system because it is unfair in several respects, including the sparsity aspect. In the light of that, there is a moratorium, so my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that it would be inappropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. However, I can give the House a commitment—as I did last Thursday—that we are actively considering making that change in future years. Many members of the Government strongly support that approach.

We have also responded to the problem in other announcements on the subject. For example, in the crime-fighting fund, which was announced yesterday, there was a specific reference to sparsity. The allocation of 4,000 of the 5,000 officers was based on the general distribution plus a sparsity factor of 2 per cent.—the first time that that has been done—acknowledging the force of the argument made by the "sparsity alliance".

Gillian Merron

My hon. Friend is aware that I think that the report on sparsity should be put into action. I have pressed him on that matter, and I am pleased that he has said that change will be actively sought. I hope that it will come soon. I welcome the boost to police recruitment. The Government have awarded Lincolnshire about 80 per cent, of the police authority's bid. The authority was one of the most successful in its bid to the new crime fighting fund. Congratulations are due to Lincolnshire police on the quality of their application and to the Government on their award of the funds.

Mr. Clarke

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that point, which is entirely correct. If I may reinforce it, may I just place on the record the remarks of the chief constable, who has been mentioned, on the fund? Mr. Richard Childs—a very fine chief constable—said in his press release: We were realistic in our bid for a portion of the Crime Fighting Fund and have been given an additional 41 officers over the next three years … We bid for a further 50 … and based that … number on specific crime and disorder initiatives focused particularly on rural communities where there is a real gap between actual crime and the fear of crime … Lincolnshire has been allocated resources to recruit"— the 41 officers over the next three years. It continued: From April we will be able to start redressing the perceived absence of officers across the whole County … They are not of course the only officers we will be recruiting as we anticipate replacing those that resign and retire as well as catching up on a few we were unable to recruit this year … With our increased investment in information technology to support the front line officers, I am confident we will meet the continuation criteria imposed by the Home Office to ensure we can recruit our full allocation".

In his covering letter to me when he sent me a copy of the press release, the chief constable said that he wanted me to emphasise that his positive approach to the allocation to Lincolnshire complements the allocation with the intention to invest heavily in IT and … touches upon our ability to recruit as many as leave next year. This is possible only as a direct result of the very significant reorganisation we have gone through and the effective problem solving focus we have adopted within the Force". That is a powerful testimony from the chief constable, which I am glad to read into the record.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman has expressed warm words about the need to introduce to the formula an element to reflect sparsity. Can he give the House an undertaking that, at the end of the moratorium period, he will introduce to the formula the sparsity factor recommended by his Home Office consultants?

Mr. Clarke

No, I cannot give that undertaking. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very experienced— I hate to use the word "statesman"—political leader in his own right. He knows that undertakings cannot be given by Ministers when major reviews of funding systems are taking place. The purpose of the review of funding systems is to weigh up the issues and form a view, including in this case on sparsity.

I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that the issue of sparsity will be very seriously considered—in fact, is being very seriously considered—throughout that process. I can give him an undertaking that the Government intend to focus even more sharply on rural crime as a very important element of our initiatives to build a safe community countrywide. However, I cannot give him an undertaking about the outcome of that review process. No Minister could, and under the Conservatives, no Minister could either, simply because a process is taking place which will give rise to conclusions.

However, I do want to say that, in addition to the sparsity element in the crime fighting fund announcements that we made yesterday, in the CCTV announcements we gave priority to rural funding issues and our new guidelines will reinforce that still further; and we are actively considering, in the context of the Government's priority on rural issues as a whole, the ways in which we can fight rural crime both with resources and with a range of other and different initiatives. I really do believe that the Government are seeking to address these issues very seriously and to ensure that we can address the issues in the fullest possible way.

On rural crime, a wide range of other issues are of concern. We are pursuing a range of inter-related initiatives to reduce crime and the fear of crime. We are delivering new powers to the local crime reduction partnerships and we are providing a significant amount of money through the crime reduction scheme and for CCTV schemes to focus on those most at risk.

We strongly believe that we must address the issues of confidence in rural communities, such as those represented by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. I genuinely commend him on securing the debate. I genuinely believe that the issues of rural crime are important, and he is right to raise them in the way that he has, not only for his constituents but for the wider good. I also genuinely believe that the Government are seriously trying to address these issues in a sharp and focused way.

Question put and agreed to.

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