Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Rob Wilson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 February 2009. It occurred during Debate on Police Grant Report.


Police Grant Report

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that Slough has had many problems dealing with extra numbers and the resultant financial pressures put on many public services. No doubt Peterborough faces a very similar set of challenges. The impact of population growth on police services needs to be recognised, so it is only right for the police authority to be consulted on major spatial plans, for example. Support to secure resources from the planning system to meet the costs of infrastructure development is also important for the policing of the expanding Thames Valley region. All that certainly needs to be looked at. We need to think about whether section 106 money should be used to help support the additional policing infrastructure that will be necessary in the years to come as the population expands. That is worth considering. I know that at this particularly difficult time in the middle of a recession, local authorities are going jealously to guard their income from section 106 money, so it is not going to be a particularly easy nut to crack if the Minister decides to go down that particular avenue. With the current level of population growth, Thames Valley police estimates that their capital costs for new buildings and so forth will be about £90 million—just to keep pace with the level of services provided now. The chief constable has said that the force will have real problems trying to generate that level of capital receipts, so it looks as thought there might be another funding gap in the future. He also estimates that the number of staff, including officers, that Thames Valley will need will have to grow to about 1,200—again just to maintain the current level of policing services. I know that there is a link to population in the revenue support grant, but the floors and ceilings apparently mean that minimal additional revenue grant will be generated for the Thames Valley police. That needs to be looked into further. There are also other funding pressures. The Olympics, for example, is clearly going to suck in resources from the Thames Valley, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister explain how that extra resourcing might be handled and what sort of extra support a force such as Thames Valley will be able to get when it is going to have to provide so many police officers for the Olympics. Counter-terrorism is another important issue. I cannot speak as freely as I would like on this occasion, so all I will say is that a significant threat still remains within the Thames Valley. I know that there is a specific grant for counter-terrorism, for which we are very grateful, but the pressure is likely to get much worse before it gets better. There is the potential for extremism in Reading, Slough, High Wycombe and other centres in the Thames Valley despite all the excellent work that goes on in those local areas to combat the threat. I have recently been critical of the detection rates of the Thames Valley police. It is actually one of the worst performing authorities in the country in that respect. We are not doing well, and that needs to be said. However, I say it as a friend, albeit a critical friend, of the Thames Valley police. The force is doing many things particularly well, but there is enormous room for improvement on detection rates. I would like to say that we have a particularly good team in Reading, made up of active, responsive and forward-thinking officers and I would like to repeat the praise I expressed in last week's Westminster Hall debate for Superintendent Steve Kirk, who does a quite outstanding job across my Reading, East constituency. I have also been very pleased by the roll-out of neighbourhood policing in my constituency. It has the potential to make a real difference over time, particularly if it is coupled with a drive to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. The impact of all the extra money that has gone into policing over the years has to some extent been dissipated because police officers spend less and less of their time on the street performing their front-line duties. There is way too much bureaucracy put upon police officers. I have heard that from them first hand. Like many colleagues, I have been out on my mountain bike with officers in Reading, East; I have been out in the town centre in a van, and I have spoken to officers. They have told me many stories. For example, I heard about an officer arresting a shoplifter at 9.30 in the morning and then having to write off the entire shift while he processed that one person through the system. There are, of course, many more such examples that I am sure colleagues could add. If we could sort out those problems, we could get more return on the investment we make in police officers. In turn, that would massively improve the prospects of neighbourhood policing making an impact. As I said earlier, I am not asking for more money. I do not think that the Thames Valley police actually needs any more money today, but it may well need money in the near future. Any support in the particular areas I mentioned would, I am sure, be very welcome to the chief constable of Thames Valley police.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
487 c882-4;487 c880-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Crime Alcoholic drinks Bureaucracy Finance ICT Immigration Police Recruitment Metropolitan Police Rural areas Cambridgeshire Constabulary Dyfed-Powys Police Thames Valley Police
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk