HC Deb 16 February 2000 vol 344 cc1076-84

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

12.27 am
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

I am grateful for the opportunity at this late hour to raise the funding of Avon and Somerset police.

The funding of our police service is a matter of considerable concern to my constituents, but I want to set my speech in the context of my respect and admiration for the work done by the force. Its officers serve our community faithfully and with great dedication. One of my aims is to ensure that advantage is not taken of that work, and that the force receives the backing that it deserves. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority for three years and brings great experience to the debate.

The dedication and professionalism of our force deserve from Members on both sides of the House not just warm words, but hard cash. That means cash for salaries and pensions, cash for officers on the ground, and cash for support services. My central contention is that the Avon and Somerset police force is stretched to the limit. I do not wish to be unnecessarily alarmist, but the force is clearly under pressure—pressure that is not entirely consistent with the language that the Government have used, and the way in which they have financed the force.

My normal custom in debate is to rely heavily on statistical evidence, and I shall shortly draw to some extent on facts and figures. First, however, I want to give some impressions of the current position from those involved in the police service. Let me start at the top, as I generally do.

The Bristol Evening Post recently ran a story quoting Avon and Somerset' s chief constable, Steve Pilkington. He is not someone who rushes to the press lightly, or is regularly quoted as saying things that stir matters up. However, speaking of this year's budget settlement, he said: We have a very, very tight budget. We will have to reduce our support staff at HQ. You take a risk when you do that. It does mean that when there is a major incident we won't be able to mobilise the support that we have done in the past. That is the perspective of the chief constable. He was not being alarmist, but saying that a gamble was inherent in the settlement for the coming year.

I have done some research, and have spoken to officers at my local police station in Chipping Sodbury. They spoke of increasing pressure to take time away from front-line police duties. They talked about increasing pressure for training. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a well-trained police service, but if that means that a given number of officers have less time for front-line policing, the bare statistics about the number of officers will not reflect their ability to deliver on the ground. We want them to be trained in human rights, new legislation, and the use of equipment and technology. Those are all good things, but if they detract from front-line policing and, at the same time, there is pressure on police numbers, something somewhere will have to give.

To give perhaps the most extreme example that I have come across in just the few days that I have been making inquiries, to coin a phrase, one constable, who for understandable reasons asked not to be named in the debate, told me that, on 25 days in the past year, he had been told not to use his police car because the budget would not wear it. The cost of the petrol would mean going over budget. On 25 occasions, he was told to stay at the station, do some paperwork and not get in the car. That was spontaneous. I did not ring up and say, "Tell me it is terrible." He simply said, "Those are the day-to-day pressures that budgets are under. That is the effect on the service on the ground." That is a sign of a force that is under stress and being pushed perhaps a little too far.

What are the hard facts about the settlement and the position for Avon and Somerset? The police authority has estimated that there was a shortfall of roughly £7 million between the funding that it was given by central Government, the assumed rise in council tax, or in the precept on the council tax, and what it needed to meet the demands. In a budget of roughly £180 million, £7 million is a substantial figure.

Why are there such pressures? Two substantial ones are well known to the Minister. The effect of pay awards and inflation eats up all the additional grant and additional assumed council tax rise. Over and above that, £2 million is needed for police pensions.

I was shocked to learn that, in the budget overall, £1 in every £6 of net police spending goes not on the police, but on pensions. That is an arbitrary way in which to fund those liabilities. That is the position not just in the police service, but in the fire service and other sectors of public service.

I recognise what the Minister said in the debate the other day—I think on 3 February. The Government recognise that it is a problem. The previous Government, the Conservatives, said that they recognised that there was a problem. We all recognise that there is a problem. We do not appear to be any nearer a solution. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that, year on year, the Government will not keep loading pension costs on to forces at the expense of police officers.

How is the authority having to respond to that pressure on the budget? Most obviously, it is having to cut police officers. Reluctantly, the police will cut 30 officers from the force in the coming year—not front-line officers, but police officers based mainly at Avon and Somerset headquarters.

The Government have talked about 5,000 extra officers-5,000 over three years, of course—through the crime fighting fund. Yes, Avon and Somerset will get some officers. It bid for more than 160. It has been awarded 101, spread over three years. Next year it will get 20 additional officers—so 30 down, 20 up: a net loss of 10.

I was in the House this afternoon when the Prime Minister boasted about the investment in extra police, but Avon and Somerset will not have extra police. Despite the figures that he quoted, it will have 10 fewer officers next year. Last year, between March and September, Avon and Somerset numbers fell by 11. It was 11 down in that period and another 10 down this year, yet the Government talk about being tough on crime. They do not back that up with money to make it a reality.

As well as cutting the number of officers, what else has the force been forced to do? It has had to cut not only back-room staff—back-room police officers—but support staff. Funding of support staff decreased by a further 1.5 per cent. to 95 per cent.

The force sat down and decided what a good police service should do. It thought that it would investigate financial crime more. That has been scrapped. No additional investment is planned because it cannot afford it. It planned to make some long-needed capital investment to make the force more efficient and to replace worn-out equipment. A £2 million contribution from revenue was going to go into capital. That was scrapped.

There is an allowance in the budget for 3.5 per cent. pay awards, but there is no general provision for price changes, so, as prices rise, the budget has to bear those costs. Petrol is the classic case. Petrol prices have been rising very rapidly and hitting police budgets, so that police officers cannot use their cars, which are costing too much money to operate. It is an absurd situation.

What has been the impact on service provision? The police authority report states: the loss of 30 officers from central staffs could impact on the level of support given to police districts"— particularly if there were a major incident— and a further reduction in support staff will be felt in terms of internal service delivery". That means the people who help police to do their job.

The report continues: it is only with an eye to the impact on precept that the Chief Constable has reluctantly proposed a reduction in authorised police strength. In other words—even with a "measured" cut of 30 police officers—the precept is rising by 11 per cent. The chief constable, who is worried about the precept, after cutting 30 officers, was willing to allow it to rise to 11 per cent. That is the type of pressure that police are under. However, not only officers will be cut.

As the report states, a backlog of forensic samples may build up because planned additional investment in forensics has had to be cut. Moreover, equipment programmes have been pared, and other programmes have been deferred. The situation has the aura of make do and mend, not of a modern efficient police service.

I believe that the Avon and Somerset police force is efficient and that it has made efficiency savings and achieved a great deal. However, constantly asking year on year for greater efficiencies without granting capital and making investment to achieve them eventually runs only into a dead end.

There have, therefore, been cuts in officers and in back-room services, but an 11 per cent. council tax rise. What can be done? I reassure the Minister that I have read in full the transcript of the debate of 3 February, when he announced the new grant settlement, which was debated in the House. Some of the points that I shall make today were made also in that debate. I shall therefore not make the points at great length, but they are particularly germane to Avon and Somerset.

Avon and Somerset has in previous years particularly, and to a limited extent this year, had to dip into its balances, taking them dangerously low. The force's balances are now below the level recommended by auditors. One can almost picture the police authority with its collective fingers crossed, hoping that nothing happens or goes wrong, because resources and reserves are low and the officers are stretched. We just hope that there will not be a major call on the force. But is that any way to have to run a police service?

The funding formula needs to be addressed. The arguments on that are well known to the Minister. He is aware of the impact of sparsity on areas such as Avon and Somerset, and the Home Office has accepted its impact on policing costs. The area cost adjustment—which may seem irrelevant in this context—and the damping effect of using six-year-old establishment factors contribute to making the funding formula unjust. I think that it is widely accepted that the formula is unjust. However, the Government's bizarre response is to do nothing about it for at least a year, to ensure stability.

Stability is a virtue, but it is not a virtue that counteracts injustice. This is perhaps an extreme analogy, but if someone were wrongfully arrested, we would not say that stability demands that we should leave them in jail—justice demands that we should get them out. Stability does not counteract injustice, which should be tackled at the earliest opportunity.

I have already addressed the pensions issues. It is agreed that it is a problem. However, there is no sign of a solution, and the problem will only get worse with every passing year.

As for the council tax benefit limitation scheme, the fact is that, when the precept rises by 11 per cent., councils will—according to the police authority—be penalised by half a million pounds, which is the equivalent of 20 officers. Therefore, although so-called crude and universal capping may have gone, back-door capping is alive and well and affecting the decisions of police authorities on policing.

I just wonder how the people of Avon and Somerset would feel if they appreciated that decisions on police numbers—decisions to cut police officers from the force—were being affected by the modem equivalent of council tax capping. If they knew, I think that they would be very concerned. When they receive their council tax bills and see the precept rise of 11 per cent., they will perhaps assume that a major improvement in the force has been made, such as the purchase of a second helicopter. They will be shocked when they learn that it is accompanied by cuts in officers, planned investment and services.

We cannot talk only about inputs; we have to talk about outputs. No one can deny that, in the past six years, the Avon and Somerset force has made important progress in cutting crime. I welcome that unreservedly and pay tribute to the force. I have two concerns. First, we should not allow ourselves to become complacent by focusing on a high base period of the early 1990s, when crime was at record levels. With the aid of the Library, I have looked at the record for the past 20 years. In the early 1980s, recorded crime in Avon and Somerset was at barely half its present level. Although things are moving in the right direction, crime levels are still unacceptably high. There is a feeling that some people do not bother to report minor crimes, because they think that the police are too stretched.

The trends on recorded crime are moving in the right direction, but I fear that that will not continue in the medium term if the force continues to be put under pressure. In its survey this year, the force asked a new question: Were you satisfied with the perceived level of foot patrol? Just 11 per cent. of the public were satisfied and the figure was only 27 per cent. for the mobile patrol. The headline figures may be coming down, but the public are not receiving the reassurance that they want from their police.

The Government are out of touch with the wishes of the people of Avon and Somerset. They talk a good game on police numbers, but they are not delivering. I know that the Minister accepts many of my points. I hope that this debate will emphasise to him that the people whom I represent want not just good words on policing, but action. I hope that tonight he can promise me some action.

12.42 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate on the funding of the Avon and Somerset constabulary. I join in his opening tribute to the dedication and commitment of his force, particularly the chief constable, Mr. Pilkington. Early in my time as a Minister I had an opportunity to go to Bristol, where I met Mr. Pilkington and many of his colleagues in the crime reduction partnership. I was very impressed by the approach of the force and the partner authorities with whom they are seeking to fight to reduce crime levels.

In the polarity that the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would be more accurate to describe Avon and Somerset as a modern and efficient force than to call it a make do and mend force. It is well led and is seeking to address difficult issues creatively and effectively. I want to place on record my appreciation of that.

As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, only a week ago I responded to an Adjournment debate from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) about the funding of Lincolnshire police. Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised in earlier debates. They are important and genuine issues. As the hon. Gentleman generously acknowledged, my response is bound to be similar to those that I have given in previous debates.

The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on Thursday 3 February. The Liberal Democrats voted against the plans. Ironically, that would have cut the funding for all police authorities. We did not make much of that. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not able to be in the Chamber for that debate, no doubt for a valid reason. His hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised important issues from his experience as chairman of a police authority.

It is important to set out the facts for Avon and Somerset constabulary. For 2000–01, its funding from the Government is £173.7 million—an increase of 3.2 per cent. on the previous year, compared with the national average of 2.8 per cent. It is important to put on record the fact that Avon and Somerset did better than the national average. I understand that the police authority unanimously set its budget on 10 February at a total of £181.2 million. The increase in its net revenue spending over 1999–2000 is 3.9 per cent., which is significant.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the authority was conscious of the need to set a precept that was reasonable and prudent. The increase in the police precept on the council tax is 11.5 per cent. for a band D property and I understand that the increase is expected to be below the average precept increase for the south-west. I know neither why that decision was taken nor what the position of the Liberal Democrats was on those issues—given their famous tax-raising commitment—when the matter was debated in the police authority. However, I understand the constraints on every police authority in deciding what judgment to make in respect of resources and I note that the police precept increase was expected to be below the average for the south-west.

The chief constable deserves great credit, as the hon. Gentleman said. When the police authority looked at its spending plans, it did so in a positive way that minimised the effect on delivery of front-line policing. The plans mean a reduction in police numbers by 30, but they protect the operational front line by ensuring that the cuts are made in central departments in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

It may be of interest to the House to know that the total number of police officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary was the same in September 1999 as it was in March 1997. There has been no decline during that period. The police authority deserves tribute for maintaining stability in the force.

Avon and Somerset's expenditure per head of population in 1999–2000 was estimated at £115.50, which is marginally better than the average for the shire counties of £114 per head of population. Avon and Somerset has done well in that significant respect. It has addressed the situation by taking hard decisions and directing them well.

In responding to the debate, I must refer to the hon. Gentleman's point about crime levels in the county. As he acknowledged, in the 12 months to September 1999, crime in Avon and Somerset fell by 5.2 per cent. or 8,162 crimes. That contrasted with an increase in crime in England and Wales, so Avon and Somerset did extremely well in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman said that citing that figure might suggest complacency. Let me reassure him that there is absolutely none. As the Government made plain this week, we have a clear drive towards reducing crime levels throughout the country, particularly in respect of vehicle crime, burglary and robbery. We have set a clear agenda and we are not complacent. However, it is right to congratulate the force on their success, in partnership with local authorities and others, in substantially reducing crime levels.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about resources and money. He makes a fair point and any hon. Member worth his salt would do so. However, I am sure that he would acknowledge that those concerns need to be set in the context of the genuine achievements of the force in addressing the issues and making progress.

Mr. Webb

May I return to the Minister's earlier comment about make do and mend as opposed to modern and efficient? As the record will show, I accepted that the service is efficient. My concern is that it must not become make do and mend, with police officers worried about getting in the car and spending money on petrol. I hope that the Minister realises that that is unacceptable.

Mr. Clarke

One of the joys of responding to an Adjournment debate is that one has a text to help one through these difficult discussions. The phrases "make do and mend" and "modern and efficient" were not in my text; they were in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He used that language. The record will sustain what I said—that it is important to pay tribute to the modern and efficient Avon and Somerset constabulary, rather than suggesting that it was moving towards make do and mend. I certainly did not make such a suggestion, although the hon. Gentleman may have done. Confidence in the force is both required and deserved, which is why I thought it important to respond to his suggestion that it was becoming a make do and mend force. I do not believe that the police authority, the chief constable or the senior officers believe that to be true, although they will all continue—rightly and fairly—to make the case for more resources as time passes. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should try to spread gossip that the force was approaching a make do and mend situation, because that is not true. I know that he would not want to be accused of spreading gloom about the future of policing in the area that he represents, and I thought that it was important to get it on the record that the Government do not believe that that is an appropriate description of the situation.

The police authority stated in its policing plan for 1999–2000: Crime reduction and community safety must be at the forefront of all that we do. We aim to reduce the overall levels of crime and disorder through working in partnership with local authorities and local communities. The Government can take credit for the work that they have done through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on building local partnerships, but the example of what has been done in the Avon and Somerset force, including the clear commitment by the whole force to working in partnership with local authorities—and, by the same token, the commitment by the local authorities to working with the police force—is exemplary and is the main reason why the force has succeeded in working with others to reduce crime. It is important to acknowledge that.

The hon. Gentleman raised several issues, as an aside to his discussion, that were addressed in the debate on 3 February, such as sparsity, the damping factor and security issues. I shall not repeat what I said in that debate and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman generously did not ask me to do so. He highlighted two issues—pensions and pay and conditions—on which I wish to confirm what I said in that debate.

We acknowledge that there is a serious problem with pensions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised it powerfully in his speech in the debate on 3 February, and it is a genuine issue across the country. This Government and previous Governments have not grasped the issues as it needs to be grasped. It raises fundamental issues about funding as a whole, the proportion of police spending that goes on pensions, and distribution—because different forces deal with the situation in different ways.

As I said in the earlier debate, we are addressing the issues as a matter of high priority, because the current situation is not fair. We are carefully considering what should be done, but I do not have a white rabbit to pull out of the hat to solve the problem. The issues have not previously been addressed because they are difficult to address and even harder to get right. What is important is that a police authority such as Avon and Somerset should not have its flexibility to decide the allocation of its resources constrained unacceptably by the proportion of its funding that must be devoted to pensions. That is a legitimate issue for the hon. Member for Northavon to raise, and I take it very seriously. Any genuinely constructive suggestions that he has about how we should address that issue would be welcome—I do not say that in a sly spirit, because I mean it seriously. Many people have odd ideas, but actually cracking the problem will be difficult.

The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issues he did on pay and conditions. We have a nationally agreed system of pay that offers constraint and is a significant factor, but those problems do not begin to approach the pensions problems in terms of the balance of issues that we must address.

In conclusion, I want to emphasise that the Avon and Somerset police constabulary will receive an extra 101 posts over the next three years under the crime fighting fund. That will be of significant help in addressing some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is a step in the right direction, and not the complete process. The chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority welcomed the decision. He was very positive about it, and I welcome that acknowledgement.

Being a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Northavon is not a utopian. He will not expect me to pluck from the sky a solution that will solve every problem under the sun, and the realism of his party on tax and other matters is well known. However, I assure him in all seriousness that the Government are trying to move in the direction that he prefers.

We want more resources to reach areas such as Avon and Somerset, but we want to ensure that the economy remains stable. Police authorities and other public-sector organisations are finding that the steady year-on-year increases under our three-year spending programme—which may not be as large as people would like—provide better help than the regime that we inherited. Under the previous Government's arrangements, resources went up and down every year, and cuts were always a possibility.

The early years of this Government are being spent filling in some of the deep holes that developed under the previous Administration. However, the steady increases that we are achieving in resource allocation represent the way forward. In my experience, police authorities across the country welcome the balanced and steady way in which we approach such matters, as year-on-year fluctuations in resources make planning and budgeting extremely difficult.

I appreciate that the Avon and Somerset force has a backlog of capital maintenance works. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested that that backlog amounted to about £7 million and that it could be tackled if the force were allowed to unlock capital receipts. The House will understand that my Department is governed by Treasury rules, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the matter in his review of local authority funding.

I have tried to deal directly with the various points legitimately raised by the hon. Member for Northavon. However, his suggestion of a potential crisis is not correct, and the police force in Avon and Somerset deserves a clear statement of the Government's confidence in the way that it is dealing with matters. I am confident that it will continue its success of recent years in bringing down crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.