USE OF POLICE MANPOWER (Hansard, 3 March 1966)

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police have for a long time made substantial use of civilians. This has increased in recent years and fresh ways of economising in police manpower are under continuous examination by the Commissioner. The establishment of full-time civilian posts in the Metropolitan Police has more than doubled in the last nine years. It has increased from 1,873 at the beginning of 1957 to 3,890 at the end of 1965. Including part-time staff, the actual civilian strength on January 31 was 5,201. Of the increase in full-time civilian posts 776 are at headquarters and 1,241 in divisions. Some branches, such as the Central Ticket Office, are entirely staffed by civilians. Others are staffed by a mixed complement of police and civil staff, Among the developments 774 which the Commissioner is at present contemplating are the replacement of police officers in divisional offices, the extended use of civil staff at courts, and the increased use of civil staff at headquarters, including training establishments. As an experiment special sub-divisional administrative units, with a mixed complement of police and civil staff, have been introduced in 17 subdivisions and if this pilot scheme is successful similar units will be set up in the other 65 sub-divisions.
I am sorry that the information requested by the noble Lord in the second part of his Question is not available. The Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University is shortly to carry out a limited survey to provide information of this kind.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full and informative reply, and I am very glad to hear that the Commissioner has in mind the changes which I envisage in my Question. But would the Minister not agree that it would be a good idea if some outside organisation were called in to recommend the changes necessary in the law which might be required to enable a far larger "civilianisation" of the police force to occur?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I do not think it is a question of a change in the law. To increase "civilianisation" (if I may use the noble Lord's word) of the police force is first a question of availability of staff. Certainly in the Metropolitan Area it is no easier to get typists than to get policemen. The other difficulty is that it is essential in the training of police, if they are to move on to higher posts, to have some clerical and administrative training. We are proceeding as quickly as we can, but the fact that we have more than doubled the civilian strength over the past nine years shows that we are proceeding in the way the noble Lord wishes.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, that is satisfactory so far as it goes, but may I suggest that perhaps the main organisational change might lie in the creation of a traffic corps which would be responsible entirely for the direction of traffic and the detection of traffic offenders, leaving able-bodied young policemen to catch criminals?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lord, this is a matter which has been under consideration, but, again, there is a shortage of traffic wardens. There are over 200 vacant posts for traffic wardens at present. I do not think there is any early possibility of achieving what the noble Lord asks for.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, everybody knows how courteous the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is in answering Questions and how he wishes to answer them fully. But I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he would note the length of the original Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It makes it very difficult subsequently for any of your Lordships to speak briefly or to ask brief supplementary questions, when one is faced with an Answer of that length.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, prefaced those remarks with the tribute he paid to my noble friend Lord Stonham. All of us would agree that in the last eighteen months nobody has served the House better than Lord Stonham.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, may I ask a brief question which will require only a brief answer?—although I was not aware that the original Answer was particularly long. May I ask the noble Lord whether he would look into the question of the enormous waste of time on the part of the Metropolitan Police in having to give evidence on behalf of the Greater London Council in respect of persons alleged to have committed offences against the motor vehicle licence duty regulations? Is it not possible that this task could better be performed by officers of the Greater London Council?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is one of the matters which the Commissioner has under consideration, and it is not for me to say whether this evidence would be better given by officers of the Greater London Council. But certainly a great deal of this work is being done by clerical officers, not policemen, who come among the additional posts created in the divisions.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, I did not intend to suggest any deficiency on the part of the police. I am not suggesting that the officers of the Greater London Council could do it better, but merely that they, and not the police, ought to be doing it, as it is, in fact, a matter for the Council and not for the police. It is a revenue offence and not a criminal offence.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, if there was any confusion it was in my reply and not in the noble Lord's question, which was quite clear. The only point of doubt in my mind was not about the advisability of what he suggested, but about the extent to which the Greater London Council could be involved.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I did raise a point, I think of some importance, with regard to the procedure in your Lordships' House, and though the noble Earl echoed my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which is gratifying both to Lord Stonham and myself, he did not answer the question. Would he please see that the answers given by his noble friends on the Front Bench opposite take up less than about two columns inHansard?

LORD TAYLOR
My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I would ask, is he aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was leading the House he was always complaining about our asking supplementary questions in Opposition? Is he allergic to questions and answers?

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, it goes without saying that any point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether for official or other reasons, will always be very carefully considered by me. He knows perfectly well that I am only too happy to discuss anything he raises at any time, and therefore if he raises that point, or any other point, I will gladly look into it. But I am afraid that I am not going to join in some blanket condemnation or criticism of my colleagues. I could easily retaliate very sharply about noble Lords in certain quarters of the House, but I would rather refrain from such remarks and say simply that I will gladly discuss anything whatever with the noble Lords Lord Carrington.