§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
2.30 pm§ Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire)I am grateful for the opportunity to hold my third Adjournment debate since being elected to the House nine and a half months ago. Both my previous Adjournment debates were on subjects of vital interest to my constituents in South-West Bedfordshire, and this debate on policing is no exception.
Earlier this year, Bedfordshire police responded magnificently to the fire at Yarl's Wood detention centre, and I pay tribute to Bedfordshire's chief constable and all the officers who came to Yarl's Wood's assistance. I also put on record my thanks to Chief Superintendent Ivor Twydell, Inspector Tony Kimble, Inspector Steve Barrett and Inspector Melvin Hartley, with whom I frequently correspond on behalf of my constituents and with whom I have had many meetings.
I have asked the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House to ensure that he does all in his power to resist attempts by various insurers to reclaim from Bedfordshire police and local authorities the costs of repairs to the detention centre. That is a source of enormous concern to my constituents, and I seek reassurance from the Minister on the subject today.
In my opinion, the costs of repair to national facilities such as Yarl's Wood should be borne by the country as a whole, not by the communities in which they happen to be situated. The extra policing requirements in the aftermath of such incidents should also be borne by the country as a whole. At present, Bedfordshire supplies 39 police officers and 13 civilian staff in the follow-up operations. Bedfordshire is a small force, and that is a considerable drain on our reserves of police officers.
In the past 15 months, Bedfordshire has also been dealing with the work associated with 12 murders and four manslaughters; I understand that they are tying up 94 police officers and 14 civilian staff. Together with Warwickshire, Bedfordshire has had the largest rise in unlawful killings in the past 15 months, which is a considerable strain on Bedfordshire police resources.
The most serious issue affecting Bedfordshire police is retention. Recruitment has improved recently, and I applaud the police authority's decision to budget for an extra 56 police officers in the year to March 2003. I understand that the constabulary needs to recruit 192 officers to reach that target, but that it believes that it will be doing well if it manages to recruit 140 to 150.
It has been brought to my attention that the current batch due to start the training course for Bedfordshire police officers should consist of 14 officers, but the course cannot go ahead at present because there are only 12 potential recruits. That is a source of concern.
In the year to 31 March 2000, five officers transferred out of Bedfordshire police; in the year ending 31 March 2001, 21 officers transferred out; in the year to the end of March this year, 45 officers wanted to go. Today there are 22 officers awaiting transfer out, and we are only three weeks into the current financial year.
884 Those trained officers are all experienced and have an average of 10 years' service. The result of their transferring out is that roughly 20 per cent. of Bedfordshire police officers are probationers. There are 200 probationer officers in Bedfordshire constabulary, 63 in Bedford, 75 in Luton and 62 in Dunstable D division, which includes Leighton Buzzard. Probationers are available for duty for 77 working days in a year or only 56 working days if they are on a driving course, which means that they can provide only a third of the manpower of a police officer who has completed his training. The Bedfordshire force is short of a further 136 officers because of the 200 probationary officers in its profile.
Many officers want to transfer out of the Bedfordshire constabulary principally because of the extremely generous allowances offered by the Metropolitan police and the City of London police. For example, a probationer with 18 weeks' service would be £7,220 better off in the Met or City of London police; a police constable with 10 years' experience would be over £5.000 better off; and an inspector with two years' experience would be £6,300 better off in the Metropolitan police. The difference in income is the result of a combination of London weighting, London allowance, central allowance housing and transitional rent allowances. In addition, there is free travel within 70 miles of Charing Cross and, for Bedfordshire officers, a guarantee, more or less, of a posting to a north London station. The problem is not unique to Bedfordshire; the chief constables of the Essex, Hertfordshire, Thames valley, Surrey and Kent forces face the same difficulty.
Much as I sympathise with the recruitment demands of the Metropolitan police, I urge the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), to bring about the end of the continual poaching of Bedfordshire officers by other forces. The Met can offer unfair additional allowances to police constables from neighbouring forces, including housing allowances for officers living in Bedfordshire. It is anomalous for Bedfordshire officers living in the county to be offered the London housing allowance plus free travel. I do not seek retrospective changes, but I urge the Minister to consider the issue very seriously indeed. The allowances for Metropolitan police officers and those for neighbouring forces must be evened out.
I turn to the issue of travellers which, I know, is of concern to many hon. Members. Bedfordshire, like many counties, suffers from the behaviour of elements of the traveller community. Of course, some travellers are thoroughly law abiding and respect the communities through which they pass. However, south Bedfordshire is on established traveller routes, which makes the problem all the more urgent for my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction) Bill, which I very much hope the Government will support. It addresses the issue of evicting travellers on highways, which was omitted from earlier legislation, and would assist with evictions from a traveller encampment at Stanbridgeford in my constituency.
There is area in which the law is deficient, to which I ask the Minister to pay attention. In my constituency, land currently classed as agricultural has been bought by travellers and has been turned into a virtually permanent encampment, with hard standings, tarmac roads, kerbed 885 pavements and sometimes street lighting, which is of huge concern to the surrounding settled communities, especially the village of Billington. I understand that Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are starting to look at that important and urgent problem. I hope that the Minister will understand my raising this issue, although it relates to the DTLR, in this debate. I have done so in the interests of joined-up government and in doing something about the problem to which I have referred.
All Governments have spent more on police forces over the years. Much of that expenditure has gone into technology, equipment and call centres, for example. However, the public want officers on the beat, and especially the same officers on the same beats so that they can get to know the communities that they serve. They can then get to know the law-abiding people in their communities and come to know extremely well those people who are causing trouble. It is a subject on which my hon. Friend the shadovs, Home Secretary has spoken. I hope that we can see progress towards the situation that I have described.
The manning of police stations is extremely important for members of the public. It is important also that they are fully functioning. Houghton Regis police station, which is in my constituency, is now open for only limited hours. Dunstable police station, the headquarters of D division, has recently decided to close its doors between 11 pm and 7 am. Leighton Buzzard police station is also a shadow of its former self.
I shall read from the lead letter that appeared on 22 January in the Leighton Buzzard Observer. It states:
Back in 1988"—the police station—had a chief inspector in charge, two inspectors—one for patrol and one for CID, an admin office with two clerks and a supervisor…an enquiry office staff of five and an office manager, five local beat officers with their own sergeant, (two of them for the town centre alone), four shifts with seven police constables and a sergeant each, four detective constables with a detective sergeant, two traffic wardens, one transport/handyman and two cleaners. And the phone was answered within seconds. The 'current' police office has one inspector, two enquiry office staff, (one part-time), two qualified sergeants, two unqualified acting constables, four shifts of just five officers each, (half trainees), a cleaner and a civilian transport officer. Having to go via the call handling centre, now a phone call can take more than 25 minutes to be answered.Our constituents are entitled to ask why things have gone backwards to such a degree since 1988, despite more money being spent by all Governments since that time.It is a sad reflection that that is the case. Are we best serving the communities that we are charged to protect when police stations offer so much less of a service to the public than they did a few years ago?
I shall refer briefly to the work of the Family Matters Institute, which is situated in Bedfordshire, at Mogerhanger. The institute has worked tirelessly over the years to strengthen family life and to run parenting courses. Indeed, it has worked in association with Bedfordshire county council and with significant elements of the Islamic community. It is of great concern to me that the Home Office has recently refused to pay grants for the institute's work, and has called into question the excellent work that it has done over the years. I place on record my concerns as a Bedfordshire Member. I ask whether the Minister could take back my concern to her Department, and ask that the matter be reconsidered.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle)As I am the Minister with responsibility for active communities, I undertake to check what is going on with the organisation that was mentioned by the hon. Member for South—West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and write to him.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on policing in Bedfordshire. It is a useful opportunity to air current concerns about the police in Bedfordshire, including the pressing issue of the outstanding insurance claim made against the police authority following the disturbance at Yarl's Wood. I echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the men and women of Bedfordshire police service and to the fire authority. I commend their courage and dedication during the night of the disturbance. They all did a magnificent job under very difficult circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear the Government's position on the insurance claim on 25 February in his statement about the fire at Yarl's Wood and the insurer's claim against Bedfordshire police. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire was present in the Chamber at the time and asked a question. We will take whatever advice is necessary and work with the police, who are operationally independent, to protect their interests and those of the people whom they serve in Bedfordshire.
The disturbance is the subject of separate investigations by Bedfordshire police, Bedfordshire fire and rescue service and Group 4 Amey Immigration Ltd., as well as the subject of an overarching inquiry conducted by Stephen Moore. I would not wish to pre-empt those findings. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Office is not directly involved in the claim made by the insurers of Group 4 Amey Immigration Ltd., as it is a matter for the Bedfordshire police authority. However, we are being kept informed of developments. For legal reasons, I cannot comment further, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are vigorously pursuing the contractor's obligations to us under the contract to run Yarl's Wood, and I hope that he will be reassured by that.
I turn to more general issues, including police officer numbers and particularly recruitment and retention. Police numbers are an important part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure a modern and efficient police service that can fight crime in the most effective way. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are well on course to achieve their target of 130,000 police officers in post—the highest number ever. It is equally important, though, that police officer time is used efficiently. There are measures in the Police Reform Bill to assist in the most effective use of officers' time and professional expertise.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is for police authority and the chief constable to determine the precise make-up of the force and its distribution across the force area. That is part of my answer to the hon. Gentleman's comments on Leighton Buzzard police station. Those are operational matters for the chief constable, not for Ministers. Those on the Conservative Front Bench in the Lords removed clause 5 from the Police Reform Bill, which would have helped a Home Secretary deal with failing forces. I am 887 sure that the hon. Gentleman will have made all the comments that he has just put on record on the Floor of the House to the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, particularly about staffing in Leighton Buzzard.
Bedfordshire had 1,077 police officers on 31 January. That is 41 more than in March 2001. I understand that the force expects to increase further to 1,117 in 2002–03. Civilian staff numbers have increased by 28, which is a 6 per cent. increase, since March 1997 to 512 on 30 September 2001. I understand that the force has introduced a number of measures to make better use of officers' time, not only to increase police visibility on the streets, which is an important reassurance to the public, but to ensure that officers spend their time more effectively.
I commend the force on those initiatives, which include a prisoner handling unit to help save officers' time. The force is considering the feasibility of extending the scheme throughout the force area. It employs civilians for case preparation, prisoner handling and custody work. For rural policing, there are two mobile police stations to provide visibility and reassurance to those communities.
The force has introduced the Operation Scorpion website, which gives the public access to crime reduction initiatives, and Ringmaster, which is a computerised system to pass on intelligence among local communities. That is particularly useful in rural areas, but it is also effective in areas with a high concentration of retail premises, so that people can be informed about the presence of known troublemakers, their whereabouts and their activities.
In addition to its specials, the force has 60 volunteers who are members of the public who give up their time to assist the force with office duties and open days so that officers can remain on the beat. That is the sort of initiative that I like to see.
The crime fighting fund, which the Government established to boost police numbers, has been central to the recent growth in police strength nationally. The CFF is enabling forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above their previous plans in the three years to March 2003. In 2000–01, forces took on some 2,800 officers through the fund and a further 3,200 were recruited by the end of 2001–02. We expect a further 3,000 to be recruited this year, and that will make up the target of a 130,000 nationally that I mentioned earlier.
In 2000–01, the first year of the scheme, the Bedfordshire force appointed 80 recruits, including its total allocation of 28 funded by the CFF. The latest information provided by the force shows that it took on 132 new recruits in 2001–02, including all of its allocation from the CFF. Subject to the force meeting the CFF criteria, it will be able to take on a further 26 recruits in 2002–03.
Partnership and crime reduction programmes in Bedfordshire have an extra £3 million of funding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of some of the projects in his constituency, including £197,000 for CCTV in Leighton Buzzard; £46,000 for partnership development in 2001–02; £110,000 for the communities against drugs initiative in 2001–02; and £42,000 for the safer communities initiative scheduled for 2002–03. That 888 is a significant investment of extra resources, which will help the police to reduce crime and improve the quality of life for his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about officers leaving the force on transfer. Transfers of officers from Bedfordshire to other forces have increased sharply from 21 in 2000–01 to 45 in 2001–02. None the less, recruitment continues to outstrip the number of officers leaving the force. Recruitment has increased from 37 officers in 1999–2000 to 82 in 2000–01 and to 132 in the current financial year.
It is healthy for there to be an interchange of experience between police forces, but I recognise that a net outflow of experienced officers can cause great difficulty. As part of the research presently being undertaken on voluntary resignations, a sample of officers who have transferred between forces will also be interviewed. The information that that provides on the reasons for transfer will help to identify measures that forces can take to reduce the number of transfers.
I understand that in Bedfordshire exit interviews conducted by the force show that some officers left to join London forces for financial reasons, but others went to other forces for affordable housing and quality of life.
Higher than average early retirements may be expected in a service such as the police for understandable reasons, but medical retirements in Bedfordshire have been significantly higher than average in recent years—a huge 58.1 per cent. in 2000–01 compared with the England and Wales average of 31.4 per cent. The Government target is for medical retirements to represent no more than 33 per cent. That is an issue on which the Bedfordshire police will have to focus in order to discover what is happening.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, following a recommendation by the police negotiating board, the previous Home Secretary approved a new allowance for officers in eight forces surrounding London who were appointed on or after 1 September 1994 and are not in receipt of housing allowance. That was awarded in recognition of the recruitment and retention problems associated with the higher cost of living in the south-east. For qualifying officers in Bedfordshire, the allowance is £1,000 a year from 1 April 2001.
Some may contend that the £1,000 allowance for qualifying officers in Bedfordshire is inadequate. The force would have had the opportunity to make that case to the police negotiating board through its representation in the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. It would be for the police negotiating board in the first instance to consider any case for revisiting the amount awarded to qualifying officers in Bedfordshire. The Home Office is paying 75 per cent. of the cost of the south-east allowance and in 2001–02 we paid the force £200,000.
Through the starter home initiative, which also aims to assist in this area, 21 Bedfordshire police staff are expected to benefit from a £10,000 equity loan to help them buy their first home. I hope that that will give the hon. Gentleman some assurance, but I recognise that complex issues are involved.
The hon. Gentleman raised issues with respect to the travelling community.
§ Andrew SelousThe Minister is responding most helpfully to the points that I have made. Before she moves 889 on from the issue of transfers, may I draw her back to the figures that I mentioned. There is a £7,200 difference for a probationer at 18 weeks. That is a huge difference for a young man or young woman starting out in the police force—from £18,000 to £25.000. The difference is £5,000 for a police constable at 10 years and £6,300 for an inspector at two years. Those figures are at the heart of the problem, especially given free travel and a guarantee of a north London station. I stress that further work needs to be done on those points.
§ Angela EagleI understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and when I said that these were complex and difficult issues, I hope that he sensed that I was acknowledging the problem. As always, we will keep an eye on trends in this area. I also hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman a hint that the police negotiating board may be a first port of call on extra allowances if a case can be made for the Bedfordshire police.
It is important in the few minutes we have left to get a point in about the travelling community. I have every sympathy with those whose lives are blighted by antisocial behaviour and criminality, whatever its source, which should be taken seriously and dealt with firmly.
The police are slightly baffled by the problems with the travelling community, as no particular cases have been drawn to their attention. I know that there has been an increase in distraction burglary in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. People may attribute such crimes to the travelling community. If that is happening, it is important that people contact the police so that they can note events, investigate what is going on and get more information about who is perpetrating such crimes. At the moment, the police are slightly baffled by the concentration of crime attributed to the travelling community. It may well be going on, but if it is, it should be reported to the police so that they can track trends.
890 The police and local authorities can use their powers under sections 61 and 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, at an early stage if necessary, to direct travellers to leave land when the statutory conditions are met. Although those are discretionary powers, we have always made it clear that antisocial behaviour and criminality should not be tolerated, and that the traveller lifestyle is no justification for behaviour that is not acceptable in the settled community.
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we introduced new antisocial behaviour orders. At present, such orders can cover only a single local government area or that area and adjoining areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be supportive of changes that we are proposing in the Police Reform Bill to introduce powers to impose an antisocial behaviour order that will be valid over a wider area than the single local authority, and potentially over the whole country. I hope that he will realise that that may be relevant if traveller communities exhibit antisocial behaviour.
§ Andrew SelousI am conscious that we have only minutes left, but may I ask the hon. Lady to give me an undertaking that she will liaise with Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about land currently classed as agricultural land that is turned into a settled encampment? We must consider that problem very seriously. It is different from the trespass issue, but it is causing huge concern to large numbers of my constituents and those of many hon. Members.
§ Angela EagleThe hon. Gentleman has left me about 20 seconds, so I shall abandon the rest of my speech. I was going to say that I will draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the DTLR, and I am sure that they will be in touch with him shortly.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.