§ 2.41 p.m.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated cost per annum of losses due to crime in the United Kingdom.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, I regret that no such estimate is available. The Criminal Statistics for England and Wales give the number of thefts known to the police in certain categories according to value of the property stolen, although the total amount cannot be calculated from these figures.
The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis provides estimates of the value of property stolen in cases of theft and fraud, with the exception of certain aggravated larcenies: the total for 1964 was estimated 5 To be £14,433,655, of which £1,858,899 was recovered. There are no figures for losses caused by malicious damage or arson.
The losses resulting from offences against the person could not be estimated without very extensive research. The ex gratia payments made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during 1965 amounted to £295,967, but this should not, of course, be taken as an estimate of the total loss caused by offences of violence against the person.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply, though, of course, through no fault of his own, it is somewhat inadequate. I should like to ask him at least two supplementary questions. First of all, would he agree that if we were to multiply the £14 million which he gave as the figure for the metropolitan area, and which applies to only a limited number of cases, by 10 or 15, it would give us a not unreasonable figure for the total loss due to crime for the whole country? That is the first question I should like him to answer.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, that is a question which, as the noble Lord is aware, cannot possibly be answered with any accuracy. But if we remember that the rate of crime committed in the metropolitan area is greater than in the country as a whole, I should have thought that possibly a factor of 3 or 3½ times would bring us much nearer the truth.
§ LORD DERWENTBut the figures the noble Lord gave me were for the loss from crime of only a limited type. Might I ask him this question? Will the Government consider whether it might not show a considerable economy if they were to be generous both over police pay, thereby getting more recruits, and also over police equipment? Because I really cannot accept that the total loss due to crime is only three or four times the £14 million.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the figures to which I referred, and which are, of course, given in the Criminal Statistics, cover crimes of sacrilege, burglary, housebreaking, shopbreaking and larceny and analyze the value of property involved in three-quarters of a million crimes. In the majority of them 6 the property lost was of under £10 in value. So this does not encourage any doubts about the figures I have already quoted.
With regard to the question of pay, I would remind the noble Lord that the annual cost of the police services in England and Wales is in the region of £180 million. The cost of the police services in the Metropolitan Police area alone exceeds £50 million annually, which is more than four times the estimated value of property stolen and not recovered. Questions of pay will be considered through the appropriate negotiating machinery. Meanwhile, I would point out that since the beginning of 1960 the pay of police constables has increased, according to the date of entry and age, by between 37 per cent. and 59 per cent. in the provinces, and between 47 per cent. and 70 per cent. in London. To-day, a 22-year-old constable in the Metropolitan Force may receive, including rent and other allowances, a total of £28 a week for a 48-hour week, and an experienced constable £34 a week. These rates compare not unfavorably with other occupations.