| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Jan 2006 : Column 137WH—continued
11 Jan 2006 : Column 138WH
West Yorkshire Police
4.30 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): This is a sad day for the people of West Yorkshire and for West Yorkshire police force in particular, as we commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky. It would be wrong not to record our respects to her and her colleagues—especially Teresa Milburn, who was wounded in the incident in which PC Beshenivsky died—and to extend our condolences to her family.
Although we often join constituents in robust discussions with senior police officers about shortcomings in the police and their performance, we should also acknowledge their successes and support their efforts to sustain those. There are serious concerns in West Yorkshire about whether movement in the right direction might be undermined by developments regarding resources and major reorganisation. Those concerns prompted me to request this Adjournment debate, which Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to grant me.
Crime levels in West Yorkshire have been falling. The division covering my constituency has made a significant contribution to that. In the past full year, April 2004 to March 2005, there were 8,383 fewer crimes in the Pudsey and Weetwood division, a fall of 19 per cent. for the year. Figures for burglary, robbery and theft of and from motor vehicles fell even further. The latest figures show a continuing downward trend. Police numbers are at record levels after falling for most of the 1990s, but we still need more resources to exert downward pressure on burglary, robbery and car theft, and to make an even greater impact on antisocial behaviour and violent crime.
The recent assessment of West Yorkshire police by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, published in October 2005, showed improvements across the board, with an "excellent" rating for investigating crime, and "good" ratings for reducing crime, promoting safety, and use of resources. However, the force's ratings in the areas of local policing and dealing with the public, although now improving, still fell far short of what is required. The handling of calls, for example, is a continual source of complaints from my constituents and, no doubt, those of other Members present.
In terms of funding, the greatest concern is that once again West Yorkshire police appears to have been penalised by the allocation of an almost flat-rate grant across the board. On paper, it has gained from changes to the funding formula, and if it had been applied this year, the formula would have provided raw allocation for West Yorkshire of £151.51 per head of the population. That is still below the allocations for comparable forces such as Greater Manchester police, Merseyside police and West Midlands police, but it is a movement in the right direction. Notionally, the formula would have provided £320 million—a figure sufficient, together with a modest precept, to fund the base budget.
Although some dampening was expected to avoid major budget cuts for other authorities, we did not anticipate the bucket of cold water thrown on West
11 Jan 2006 : Column 139WH
Yorkshire's legitimate expectation of a much fairer proportion under the formula. In total, £14.3 million has been clawed back from the force to subsidise forces that would otherwise receive an increase of less than 3.2 per cent. That is the third largest clawback for any force, and it represents 10 per cent. of the total amount needed to support those forces below the 3.2 per cent. floor.
The three forces most affected, including West Yorkshire, all contain significant deprived communities, and they have particular protective service needs. Last year it appeared that a greater emphasis was being placed on the formula, but this year we appear to have reverted to a rigid system of floors and ceilings.
To compound that formula-funding failure, the change to the new pension financing arrangements has also hit West Yorkshire police adversely. Although it was intended to be cost-neutral at individual authority level, its impact means a loss of £2 million for the year 2006–07. It has impacted also on the budget that the authority can spend before capping criteria are breached.
Those factors have created a serious funding shortfall. To bridge it would require a double digit precept or measures that would seriously undermine the capacity of the force to move things forward as we should want it to. The force's latest estimate of the budget increase needed for next year is £17 million higher than the funding available with a precept increase of 5 per cent. In fairness, the estimate includes growth of £4.4 million in the areas of counter-terrorism, quality of service commitment and police community support officers. However, even without that desirable growth, the gap is substantial.
I appreciate that Ministers cannot make special provision for individual forces, but there are at least three specific and legitimate ways in which my hon. Friend and his colleagues could assist West Yorkshire police to make up some of the budget shortfall. The first would be to fund a counter-terrorism unit. The second would be payment in full of the force's outstanding claim in respect of the policing that it carried out as a result of the 7 July bombings in London, and the third would be the designation of Leeds-Bradford airport for security purposes.
The force's request through the terrorism and allied matters advisory group of the Association of Chief Police Officers for funding for a local counter-terrorism group similar to the one that has already been set up in the west midlands is still outstanding, and the force would be grateful for any influence that my hon. Friend can exercise in that direction. The current estimate of the cost of policing arising from the London bombings is £5.9 million, which would make a significant contribution to dealing with the funding gap, at least in the short term. Again, I trust that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will smile favourably on that bid.
It has long been argued that Leeds-Bradford airport should have designated status for security purposes. It has always been inexplicable to me why it does not. It certainly impacts on the day-to-day policing in the Pudsey and Weetwood division, which covers my constituency as well as the airport. As I understand it, designation would bring in some £300,000 of additional funding. It would allow the force to provide the right
11 Jan 2006 : Column 140WH
level of security, and it would also mean that it would not constantly suffer from abstractions from the local division.
Let me turn to the question of force mergers. There has been considerable concern in West Yorkshire about this process, starting as it did during the recess and with tight deadlines and little opportunity for engagement, especially by MPs. It sounds a bit like the Department of Health and primary care trusts, but I shall not go down that avenue. There were also concerns about a prescriptive agenda that makes merger obligatory rather than optional. I appreciate that the Government cannot ignore the advice of the Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary about protective services and the inability of smaller forces to meet the challenge, but I make no apologies for looking at the issue from a West Yorkshire perspective.
There continue to be major concerns: the cost and funding of the restructure, the nature of the new governance arrangements that will be required, implications for council tax, fear of a levelling down of services and, above all, fear of a massive reorganisation submerging the thrust to develop community policing. To varying degrees, both amalgamation options have the same shortcomings, and it is incumbent on my hon. Friend and his colleagues to demonstrate why West Yorkshire must be merged when there are strong arguments, including the Home Office's own criteria, for retaining the present operational boundaries.
West Yorkshire is the fourth largest force in the country and easily meets the Home Office's minimum size for a strategic force. It has demonstrated its capacity to deal with the challenge of terrorism. The requirement to address the need for protective services must not impinge on, or undermine, neighbourhood policing—that is a given. The fear is that the enormity of the work required to achieve mergers, especially on the massive regional basis that is being considered, will inevitably do just that. Inevitably, work at neighbourhood level will be diverted, but the resources available for dealing with yobs, burglars, robbers and car thieves must be maintained and increased, not submerged into some gigantic bureaucratic change.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Truswell : No. The hon. Gentleman is not observing the conventions of the House. Many other Members would have wished to contribute, but it would have been invidious to select individuals.
The distinction between West Yorkshire and other forces in the region is reflected by the fact—nominally, at least, as I have already said—that it receives more Government funding per head than other forces. There are also significant differences in performance. West Yorkshire's score on the protective services assessment recently carried out by the HMIC was relatively high. It was the highest scoring force in the region, with a combined score of 53, compared with totals of 42, 35 and 32 for South Yorkshire, Humberside and North Yorkshire respectively. There is, therefore, an understandable fear that there would be a levelling down of services as far as West Yorkshire is concerned, rather than a levelling up, especially in the early years.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 141WH
Using the Home Office's own criteria, the option is easily the best approach for West Yorkshire, and has achieved a protective services score of 502. The Minister will be aware of the much lower scores that were achieved using the other two options.
Some collaborative and lead force arrangements with neighbouring forces are already in place, and I understand that they operate pretty well. As the submission from West Yorkshire police says, such arrangements could be formalised and extended if necessary to provide extensive and robust policing to meet the requirements of the protective measures. That would satisfy that particular requirement without incurring the enormous set-up costs and disruption associated with amalgamation.
I appreciate that that option requires creative thinking rather than a neat bureaucratic solution. It is not a no-change option, and its financial and operational impact needs to be taken into account, but its impact would be much less than that of either of the two options that the Home Office currently seems to favour. Policing must be tailored to geography and population, especially if neighbourhood policing is to be a reality. West Yorkshire has little common ground with neighbouring forces in its social diversity, culture and ethnicity.
The Government recognise those differences in policing demands through the funding formula, if not through the grant system at the moment. Compared with other forces in Yorkshire and Humberside, West Yorkshire receives a relatively high level of Government support, which as I said is nominally about £151 per head, which reflects the comparatively high risk of crime. Residents in other counties receive comparatively less support. In North Yorkshire, for example, the figure is £83.73 per head.
Although Yorkshire people are proud of their county and its traditions, in practice its local services have never been provided or governed at county level. We had the ridings, and now we have the diverse structures that have developed in more recent decades. The four counties have distinct and different economic, industrial, social, demographic and ethnic profiles that would present significant barriers to a successful merger.
The regional merger option in particular looks and feels overblown. A service that has such an intimate impact on neighbourhoods and individual citizens has never been delivered by such a large organisation outside London. Without major changes to existing arrangements, the effect of amalgamation would be to equalise Government funding in the new police region, and to equalise the police precept paid by residents. That would immediately create unfair disparities in the precept. Currently, annual precept payments for a band D household in the region range from £176 in North Yorkshire to £107 in West Yorkshire.
Using a crude equalisation approach, both the amalgamation options would lead to an increase in the precept paid by West Yorkshire residents by 20 per cent. There are other organisational considerations. Policing boundaries in West Yorkshire are coterminous with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and other community safety partners. All district councils have
11 Jan 2006 : Column 142WH
representation on the police authority that is proportional and reflects the political make-up of the county. The number of councillor members of the authority allows them to engage fully as members of the authority, as well as carrying out the other duties for which their constituents elected them. That would not be possible under either amalgamation proposal.
West Yorkshire has recently reorganised its basic command units. That was not a painless exercise, but they will, we hope, develop better neighbourhood policing and improve engagement with the community and individuals who need to contact the police. However, trying to get that right amid the maelstrom of a major strategic reorganisation would traumatise any student of local government and services and fill them with trepidation. It certainly has that effect on this student of local government.
The regional amalgamation of personnel would be on an unprecedented scale in mainland policing outside the Metropolitan police. Integrating two different sets of systems and work forces would be difficult enough; integrating four would be a mammoth and elusive challenge. It would certainly, whether fairly or unfairly, be blamed for every shortcoming in service at every level for the foreseeable future. A regional force would feel very remote to the public. It would not have a firm political identity and would not share any current boundaries with partners. Most of the amalgamated force would be concentrated in the south-west of the region, which would be a bone of contention with residents and the force in the rest of the region. We want to avoid that sort of resentment.
In summary, those are the principal reasons why West Yorkshire police authority, West Yorkshire police force, councils in West Yorkshire, MPs such as myself who are present, and those who are not, feel that West Yorkshire, in the Home Office's own terms and beyond, meets the challenges of providing protective services while continuing to develop effective neighbourhood policing. It would be a great irony and perversity if in striving to address the demand and needs of protective services, we were to undermine policing at the grass-roots, neighbourhood level.
4.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins) : I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and begin, as he did, by mentioning the funeral of Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky, which took place earlier today. I join my hon. Friend and all Members present from West Yorkshire in conveying my sincere sympathy and thoughts to her family. Her tragic death is a timely reminder to us all of the bravery of our police officers in dealing with all aspects of crime, sometimes, unfortunately, as in this case, with tragic consequences.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has touched on some controversial issues this afternoon. I say that as a humble Mancunian facing the serried ranks of the force of West Yorkshire. It is important that we have this debate. Having what I hope will be an informed and constructive dialogue will be an important part of our reform programme. We need to engage with and try to understand and answer some of the legitimate questions being raised by hon. Members and the communities that they serve.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 143WH
The effectiveness of British policing is based on the principle of consent. It is important, particularly through a period of change, that police forces are supported and understood in terms of both structure and purpose by the communities that they serve. Although the debate about restructuring has sometimes been caricatured as a move toward regionalisation or the creation of large forces for their own sake, it is precisely because we value local policing services that we are making reforms. A constant theme of my hon. Friend's speech was the need to keep the focus on local neighbourhood policing. I hope to persuade him in the next few minutes that that aspiration lies at the heart of the reform programme on which we have embarked.
For most people, indeed for everyone, policing is about their local community. Many of the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed today centre around neighbourhood policing and the connection with local communities. People want their police to help create a safe neighbourhood for them to live in. Increasingly, they also want to have a greater say in setting the priorities for the police who operate in their area. That is right and legitimate. Any proposals to restructure police forces will build on that approach, improving the services that are provided to individual neighbourhoods and addressing the particular problems that they face. We are committed to providing dedicated, visible, accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing in all parts of the country by 2008.
The focus for neighbourhood policing has always been the basic command unit and levels below that, and that will not change through the period of reform on which we have embarked. In fact, I contend that local people will experience an improvement in their local policing. The creation of strategic forces with sufficient capacity and resilience to deal with major investigations or public order incidents will help to safeguard local policing by reducing the need to abstract officers away from policing local neighbourhoods to deal with those serious incidents, so it is to protect neighbourhood policing and stop people from being drawn away from it that we are taking the measures that we are taking.
My hon. Friend used the word submerged. He does not want neighbourhood policing to be submerged in the process of change. I promise him that that will not happen, and that that focus on neighbourhood policing will remain.
The real purpose of our reforms is to create police forces that are committed to local policing, but have the necessary capacity and resilience to respond effectively to serious crime or public order incidents whenever they happen. We need forces that can be more proactive in countering organised criminal networks—by gathering the intelligence that is needed to understand and pre-empt their activities in communities—while working consistently to national standards.
This is not an academic exercise in redrawing boundaries on a map. We need a fundamental change in our approach to terrorism, serious and organised crime, civil contingencies and emergency planning, public order and other protective services. It must be more strategic, but must have neighbourhood policing very much at its heart.
My hon. Friend mentioned the report "Closing the Gap" produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. It is an extensive examination of how
11 Jan 2006 : Column 144WH
effectively the protective services are currently provided. The expert and independent advice given in the report was that, given that the current structure of policing is no longer fit for purpose, strategic forces offer the best business solution. HMIC concluded that if nothing were done, the situation would be likely to worsen rather than to improve in that, increasingly, resources would be drawn away from neighbourhoods in order to provide protective services. It found that larger forces—my hon. Friend mentioned the figures: those with at least 4,000 officers or 6,000 staff—are more likely to have the capacity and resilience needed to cope with the demands of cross-border crime without abstracting from local policing. Below that level, forces are not considered to have the critical mass to provide the protective services that all communities require.
To achieve the reforms, the process needs to be owned and led by the police service itself. I do not have a blueprint for reorganisation, nor does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I accept that the time scales that have been set for the process are challenging. Police forces and authorities have been working extremely hard, and I am grateful, as is the Home Secretary, to all, including those in West Yorkshire, who have contributed to the process, for all the work that has gone on and the efforts that have been made to identify the options for restructuring. Some forces and authorities have been extremely proactive and creative in the ways in which they have sought to engage with the public and sound them out about the proposals. There has been a high level of consultation throughout the country.
We need to keep to the challenging time scale. This is an important discussion, but we do not want it to detract from the important business of day-to-day policing; we do not want it to sap morale, and we do not want the police to lose their core focus on protecting the public. Going forward, we will need to consider a range of issues. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of them. I cannot dwell on the detail of the answers this afternoon, but I acknowledge that important questions have been asked and that we are determined to get a proper response to them.
Mr. Truswell : Going back to what the Minister said a few minutes ago, the crux of the concern in West Yorkshire is that the force easily meets the minimum level that would satisfy the requirements of the HMIC. He mentioned 4,000 officers. I think that there are 5,700 in West Yorkshire, so that is not marginal; it easily meets the criteria. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would explore why West Yorkshire is still being pushed down the road of amalgamation.
Paul Goggins : My hon. Friend makes a good point and reads my mind. He is right, and I can give the precise figure. The current strength of West Yorkshire is 5,671 officers and 3,452 staff, a total of 9,123, so the force fulfils the criterion set down by HMIC on its own. However, that is only one of a number of criteria, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that any force standing alone should not do so to the detriment of other forces within a particular region. There is a balance to be struck.
There are two other options, which I shall mention. The option of the stand-alone police authority and force for West Yorkshire has not been dismissed. That will be
11 Jan 2006 : Column 145WH
evaluated as part of the whole process. Two options have come forward: one for a regional force and the other for two forces based on the current system with West Yorkshire police merging with North Yorkshire police and South Yorkshire police merging with Humberside police. Those options will be evaluated properly and we shall continue to engage in discussion of them. My hon. Friend is right. On its own, West Yorkshire police fulfils the criteria, but we must take account of the wider context.
I hope that my hon. Friend understands that it is not possible in the context of this debate to comment further on the details or merits of the proposals. We must continue to evaluate all the options carefully to ensure that we have a coherent system for West Yorkshire and the whole of England and Wales. We want to continue to work with local forces, police authorities, other bodies and Members of Parliament in that discussion.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues about finance and I want to respond to them in the time that I have left. He spoke particularly about the estimated loss of some £14 million in each of the next two years compared with what the raw grant would have given to the West Yorkshire authority. It is true that had it been just the grant the figure would have been higher. However, we set a floor of 3.2 per cent. for next year and 3.7 per cent. for the following year. In setting that floor, there are winners and losers and the money must come from the pot. I freely acknowledge that a tough decision must be taken, but we are clear that we want all parts of the country to benefit from the considerable increase in funding for the police in recent years—a 27 per cent. increase in real terms since 1997 with a huge cash increase and more police on the front line. We have had to take a balanced view about that. West Yorkshire police has benefited enormously overall from that extra
11 Jan 2006 : Column 146WH
investment. We want all areas to benefit and we have had to make a balanced judgment. The decision was tough but we believe that it is the right decision.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the application for special grant for the cost of policing in the period immediately after 7 July and join him in commending the police on the careful, sensitive and robust way in which they dealt with many of the issues. That application is still being considered and as soon as a decision is made we will convey it to the police authority.
My hon. Friend also mentioned counter-terrorism units and asked whether there was a possibility of funding for such a unit in West Yorkshire. That will be considered as part of the roll-out of counter-terrorism units throughout the country but it plays into the debate about future force structure and we cannot have one debate without the other. However, I acknowledge the importance of my hon. Friend's point, which has registered strongly with me.
I cannot make a promise to my hon. Friend about the designation of Leeds-Bradford airport although I acknowledge that issues arise. I have an airport in my constituency and am familiar with the sort of issues that he raised. I promise to look carefully again at the matter and will write to him setting out our detailed thinking behind the issues.
I acknowledge that many difficult issues must be addressed in the restructuring process. Crime is still too high despite the fact that we have reduced it by 35 per cent. in recent years. We need police forces that can deal with bigger issues of counter-terrorism and organised crime as well as the bread-and-butter, day-in, day-out issues of neighbourhood policing. As we go forward we seek a force structure that enables us to do both so that my hon. Friend's constituents can rely on a police service that meets all their protective needs.
| Index | Home Page |