§ Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the debate to take place. I also thank the Minister for giving up his valuable time. I would have preferred not to have the debate today, but in the circumstances I had no choice other than to raise the subject of Chorley police station.
The relationship between Chorley police, the local authority and local groups has been good, and all parties working together have produced some good initiatives. It is disappointing that we will end up discussing the closure of the police station, or its possible closure between 12 midnight and 8 am, but we will deal with that later.
Good work has been done. A scheme was started in Anderton and Adlington to put in place new security arrangements at bungalows where old people live. That is important. Only last month, the Home Secretary visited the area and was impressed with the scheme. It has ensured that crime has fallen greatly, which was what we wanted.
It is also important that Chorley is receiving more closed circuit television money. Chorley was a pathfinder with its mobile CCTV unit, which has been the envy of many other areas. Many police authorities have visited the town to see it and it will certainly be copied. We can be proud that it came out of Chorley.
A major campaign is under way to ensure that Clayton village has a police station. The population of the village is 15,000, but there is no police station. That is another campaign that we have taken on board. The community groups and I have been discussing the matter with the police.
The decision of the police to close Chorley police station between 12 midnight and 8 am undermined all those new initiatives. The real problem is that there was no consultation. Earlier in the year, the police decided to close the custody suite at the police station. As the local Member of Parliament, I was not consulted. The local authority, the police forum and other groups that we thought would have been consulted, were not. That closure raised concerns about the future of the police station.
The divisional commander and the chief constable of Lancashire constabulary guaranteed that the police station was not under threat and that they would consult any relevant bodies in the future. That was crucial. The chief constable sent a letter to the local authority on 11 February stating that the policy station would not close.
The decision to close the station was taken with no consultation, no notice and no warning to the local authority or myself, as the Member of Parliament. In fact, the local press stumbled on the note outlining the decision to close Chorley policy station. At 5.30 pm last Tuesday, I received a telephone call from the local press who said that they would respect my comments and asked for my view on the closure of the police station between 12 midnight and 8 am. I was absolutely flabbergasted; I had no inkling whatever about the decision. After everything that we had achieved by working well together, I was disappointed that that decision was taken with total disregard for everyone else.
164WH The claim is that the station was closed for only one night, but it is the fact that it closed without any consultation that is important. Lancashire police authority's policing plan outlines the corporate strategy. The key part concerns partnerships. Lancashire constabulary prides itself on consulting local representatives, the police and community forum and community groups. Clearly, it did not do so, which has caused the problems. How could it have made such a decision without consulting or even informing relevant groups? That is the major worry. Budgets may be devolved and the local inspector may be allowed to take decisions, but such a lack of communication is unacceptable. It is not the way forward and it is not the way to run the police in a modern society. To go forward, we should work in partnership. Concerns will be raised if current practice continues.
Inspector White said that the closure was on health and safety grounds and was to protect police officers. If the police inside the station must be protected, what about the public outside, who need the police? In London, thugs pursued an Asian gentleman, who had to lock himself in a mobile toilet, where he then used his mobile phone to summon the police. People could be running down the street to the police station, only to find that they cannot enter because the doors are locked. They would then have to pick up the mysterious phone. Who would answer? At present, Chorley police answer, but soon calls will be re-routed to Hutton. That is centralisation, because the headquarters of the Lancashire police are in Hutton.
People must man those phones. Could there be 10 phones, but only five people to answer them? What would happen if all 10 phones rang at the same time? If there were one person per phone, why could one person not be put in Chorley police station? That would be more beneficial. The plan is not good politics or good policing and it could make people who have been able for many years to enter the police station, and who have always thought that a police station of that size would be open 24 hours a day, more vulnerable. We must reinstate such provision. It is important to remember the purpose of the police station.
Inspector White should reconsider his comments, because people feel more vulnerable when they believe that the police must be protected within their own police station. He has sent out the wrong messages. The closure of the police station is a worry, because Chorley is unique. It is not a little town centre, but a big area of 80 square miles. Chorley has a population of more than 100,000 and 27 parish districts surround its centre. It should have a 24-hour police station, because it is no ordinary district. It is a large, varied area that goes from the moors and the hills to the plain of Lancashire. A 24-hour police station is the least that we should ensure for the good people of Chorley.
As centralisation and the movement towards Hutton continue, we must consider the fact that Chorley is on a county boundary. Greater Manchester police force operate on one side, but they will not work in Lancashire, so we can only go further north or west for services. There is no access across the Pennines and Greater Manchester police cover the south. It is important to recognise that the police stations that will back up Chorley are some distance and I know that the Minister will take on board that important matter.
165WH Centralisation and the fact that we were not consulted or informed before the station started to close its doors have caused problems and worry.
The response times to criminal activity in Chorley will increase because of the need to travel further, which will also raise costs. There are more arrests in Chorley than South Ribble, yet all the people arrested in Chorley are booked in South Ribble. That takes up more police time. It has now been recognised that the custody suite in Chorley may have to be opened at weekends, because Chorley is a busy town. People from all around visit it, and that means disturbances. Taking those people to a much quieter place is not feasible, especially if numbers cannot be catered for when custody suites are needed at the weekend. The plan needs to be re-jigged and reconsidered. Nothing more should happen before consultation. Public perception will be bad, as the closure sends out all the wrong signals about crime and the future of the police station.
People suffer not merely from crime, but from fear of crime. Their fear will continue if they believe that the doors are locked and that sometimes no police officers will be in the station. It is another big worry when the police are called out and no one is left in the station. It is crucial to ensure more police resources in Chorley.
§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)The hon. Gentleman mentioned resources. Does he agree that the problem in Chorley reflects wider resource pressures on the Lancashire police force? It also reflects the fact that 6.6 per cent. of the Lancashire police are either ill or on light duties. Pressures on resources and manpower are also manifested in the Ingol ward of my constituency, which cannot sustain more than one community beat officer. That relates to the hon. Gentleman's theme of the fear of crime.
§ Mr. HoyleI agree that there is a problem in Lancashire. Police numbers are down and too much time is lost through sickness. It is important to deal with that. Police resources are undoubtedly a major concern for many Lancashire people. I recognise that the Government have taken that into account and intend to deal with funding issues.
I shall provide some statistics. Public satisfaction about the perceived level of foot patrols in Lancashire fell from 19 per cent. in 1997–98 to 14 per cent. in 1998–99. Satisfaction with perceived mobile patrols during the same period fell from 53 per cent. to 42 per cent. Closure of police stations during the night will not improve public perception. It will only add to people's worries. Public confidence is crucial to good policing.
Another key objective of the Lancashire constabulary's strategy is to maintain satisfaction among commuter groups and the public, but that is not being achieved. I have with me a copy of the Chorley Guardian, with the headline, "Locked Out". It is right for the local paper to draw attention to the public's anxieties. The article states:
Insp White also admitted that when the planned move of the station's communications room to police HQ in Hutton takes place later this year. calls from the phone at the bottom of the station steps will be routed through there rather than into the Chorley station.166WH People dashing to a phone may find that their calls will not be answered because so many calls are coming in from all over Lancashire. If that is allowed to continue, there is a real danger of this policy being copied elsewhere.The Minister must answer some key questions. Are further resources available to ensure that Chorley has a 24-hour police station? Can resources be directed differently to keep the police station open? What pressure can the Minister apply on Lancashire constabulary to keep the police station open full time? That is what the people of Chorley expect and what they deserve. Will the Minister ensure that Lancashire constabulary consults local representatives and other relevant bodies before taking such important decisions in future? Will he initiate a review of the role of police authorities in response to recent events, because the police are taking decisions that affect thousands of people without giving them the elementary courtesy of informing, let alone consulting, them?
The local newspaper in Chorley discovered what was happening out of the blue when someone left a notice on the board saying that the police station was to be closed between 12 midnight and 8 am. No one knew about it, no one was advised about it and no one was consulted on it. That is not the way forward; it is through partnership and consultation. We must urgently deal with the fact that Chorley was denied any partnership or consultation.
The situation may have changed a little, as the Home Office has phoned up responsible individuals. Some people may rightly be jumping about, demanding to know who took such a decision and how it could have happened. The point is that it did happen. The Minister may have received some flannel from police HQ and may have been told that it was a one-off problem resulting from staffing on a particular night and that the station was not closing. However, the inspector admitted in black and white that it was closing. If nothing else, the fact that we are having the debate today has ensured that our police station will remain open for the near future to allow consultation to take place. The bottom line, however, is that the measure was going to be sneaked through under the door without anyone knowing about it—that is the crucial point.
Reports on the knock-on effect may be filed away somewhere. I know that reports are not good in other areas in which they have lost their 24-hour police stations. People may say that only one person a night visits the station and that person may only be a drunk. If we consider only that small statistic over a short period, we do not take into account what happens the year round and what will happen. Chorley has a growing population—a new town has been built in the region and before long there will be a new village with 2,000 houses. The area is growing, not declining.
The closure took place without consultation and we must keep the station open in the future. New licensing laws may be introduced—there may be a 24-hour alcohol licence. We will not be able to close the police station at midnight, because everyone will not be put out into the town centre at 11 o'clock. Far from it, there will be a busy time around 1.30 am to 2 am or 2.30 am, when people may cause trouble. A handbag or a car may be stolen, or someone may be attacked, but when the victims go to the police station they will find that huge, 167WH eight-storey building in the town centre closed. With the changes in the licensing laws and patterns of behaviour in town centres, people should feel that the 24-hour station is a refuge to which they can go if they have a problem.
Civilian staff have always worked at the station, but that has suddenly become a health and safety problem. Why is it supposed to be a problem only from midnight to 8 am? Surely, if there is a problem, it must be for 24 hours a day?
Let us be honest: such closures are not good policing. I look forward to the Minister's speech because I am sure that he will take on board my arguments and will recognise that the people of Chorley are important.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office(Mr. Charles Clarke)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on obtaining the debate on police funding in Lancashire as a whole and in Chorley in particular. He has already achieved part of his ambition by ensuring that the subject receives local and national airing.
Let me set the context for the debate. The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on 3 February 2000. Under those proposals, Lancashire constabulary's Government-supported funding for that year will be £185.3 million, an increase of 4 per cent., which represents an extra £7 million over the previous year—that 4 per cent. contrasts with the national average of 2.8 per cent. Lancashire police authority has set a budget of £189.6 million, with a 4.6 per cent. increase in net revenue spending. The south Lancashire devolved budget is £26.7 million, which means an increase of 12.7 per cent in that region in the past year. Those figures contrast with an average of 4 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.
Lancashire is, therefore, a relatively well-funded force. Audit Commission figures published in March show that the force spends nearly £121 a year per person, compared with a national average of £118. As the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, there are fewer police officers in Lancashire than there were when the Government took office in 1997. In September 1999, there were 3,221 police officers—27 fewer than there were in March 1997. I should set that figure in context, however, as in contrast to that reduction, in the same period the number of civilian support staff employed by Lancashire constabulary increased by 90.
As the House will understand, many of those extra civilians will undertake operational support jobs that were once the preserve of police officers such as scenes of-crime officers. Their recruitment makes it possible for the operational front line to be maintained. It is a means of ensuring that best value is obtained from the available resources and that police officers do the jobs that we expect of them—patrolling our streets and working towards the reduction of crime.
On police numbers, I remind the House that in September my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a new crime fighting fund, which will be used to recruit 5,000 police officers over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited in the three years from April 2000. About a month ago, on 168WH 27 March, my right hon. Friend announced how the £285 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided in this year's Budget was intended to be used. The first deployment of that money will be to enhance the crime fighting fund, which will be brought forward to deliver those 5,000 officers in two years rather than three, and at least to double the number to be recruited in the first year. In the next two years, Lancashire constabulary will receive sufficient funding from the crime fighting fund to enable the recruitment of 126 extra police officers over and above the number that the force would otherwise have recruited.
It is important to pay tribute to the work of Lancashire constabulary, the chief constable and her force. They have made impressive inroads in the reduction of crime. In the 12 months to September 1999, crime fell by 10.8 per cent. That is a substantial achievement. It is the biggest single reduction in crime achieved by any force in the country. From the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is acknowledging my remarks, I know that he would want to join in that tribute.
I gather from the Lancashire policing plan for this year that the crime rate in Chorley is about half that recorded in some other local authority areas, making south Lancashire statistically one of the safest places to live in the country. I also gather that the priority anxieties in Chorley include drug and alcohol misuse, personal safety, fear of crime—to which my hon. Friend referred—vehicle crime and road safety. All those anxieties are significant, but they have been prioritised on the basis of generally good crime figures compared with the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the county.
My hon. Friend mentioned partnership, which is the core of the Government's approach in such matters. It is important to acknowledge, as he did, that partnerships can mobilise community resources at every level to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending. I understand that my hon. Friend was instrumental in the partnership between the police and Chorley borough council's housing department, which targeted vulnerable sheltered housing in the Anderton and Adlington areas. More than £90,000 of local authority money was used to improve security. I am told that that partnership has been a great success, with no reported crime since the works were carried out, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that work.
I also understand that Chorley borough council has for some time led the way locally in developing CCTV systems, to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government have awarded £2.4 million to 11 CCTV systems in Lancashire, including a £271,000 scheme for Chorley town centre car parks, and £120,000 for a mobile system covering urban and rural areas in Wyre.
The key point, and the core of my hon. Friend's speech, is the future of Chorley police station. I hope that he will not mind my explaining the general context because it is important to set the decision in the overall context of the force.
My hon. Friend was clear about consultation. I acknowledge that and will deal with some of his arguments. I assure him that he will not get any flannel from me on the matter. It is for the chief constable, Mrs. Clare, to decide, and ultimately she must take operational responsibility.
169WH The chief constable informs me that she has no intention of closing Chorley station and wants that explicitly on record. I gather that the station is part way through a £300,000 refurbishment programme, which it would obviously not be if the intention were to close it. However, my hon. Friend is right to mention proposed changes in the use of the station. As he said, the new police service radio communication system, PSRCP, will be based at police headquarters and, as he knows, Lancashire will be one of the first forces in the country to use it. The communications room at Chorley will therefore be closed. It is important to emphasise that the migration of the communications system to the force headquarters will have no effect on the operation at or the policing of Chorley. The purpose of PSRCP is to increase police activity in the area being policed, instead of officers having to remain in the police station.
The migration of the communications rooms at Chorley and other police stations to the Lancashire force headquarters will reduce the staff available to reinforce custody suites at short notice. Therefore, for the health and safety reasons of short notice that my hon. Friend gave, the force advises me that it has had to reconsider the number and location of custody suites in the force area. As a result, Chorley custody suite was closed on 1 April and Leyland police station became the main custody facility for the southern division of the Lancashire force. The chief constable stated her belief that those changes would not affect the policing of Chorley. However, I understand why my hon. Friend makes his points and shall respond accordingly.
The chief constable has informed me that she is considering the possibility of ending the current 24-hour status of Chorley police station. That is a matter for Mrs. Clare and the police authority.
§ Mr. HoyleIs the Minister aware that the chairman of the police authority did not know that the decision had been taken?
§ Mr. ClarkeI was not aware of that. My hon. Friend has put the matter on the record.
I was informed that the reason for the chief constable's decision is that surveys conducted by the Lancashire police have found that, on average, only one 170WH person visits police stations between midnight and 6 am. It is maintained that closing the station to public access does not affect the policing of Chorley precisely because of the availability of modern telecommunications. By ensuring that police are on the beat instead of in police stations, new telecommunications systems will result in a higher police profile. The chief constable has reached a decision on the basis of the limited need for public access late at night, which is why she is considering Chorley's future as a 24-hour station. She proposes to reduce its hours of business when the radio communications facility moves to headquarters. I should emphasise that she intends to consult the local community on the process before making a final decision. My hon. Friend—and his local paper—can therefore take some satisfaction that, in raising this issue in this Chamber and more widely, he has secured part of his ambition to ensure proper consultation on the matter before a final decision. However, I reiterate that, ultimately, it is an operational decision for the chief constable. That is the fact.
My hon. Friend also referred to whether restricted hours for Chorley police station would affect the force's involvement with partnership. The chief constable has asked me to inform this Chamber that there is no question of the police's commitment to the Chorley partnership being inhibited by such decisions. That is an important point.
I have answered a number of my hon. Friend's questions about consultation. He also raised the important issue of response times, with which police are wrestling throughout the country. Call centre systems are becoming more efficient at dealing with incoming calls, instead of a whole range of local calls in different circumstances. The purpose is to reduce rather than increase response times. I do not have the figures for Lancashire, but I can assure my hon. Friend that he should not be worried on that score.
On further resources, I cannot help my hon. Friend with his request. As I said, the Lancashire force is relatively well resourced in comparison with other forces and that is an operational matter for the chief constable. I know that the hon. Gentleman will discuss his concerns with her.
This has been a useful debate, which has raised several important issues. I emphasise that Lancashire is being well policed and that crime is falling.