As everyone who has had experience of police forces overseas well knows, our police are the finest in the world—not only because of the individual character of the average British policeman but because of his sturdiness and honesty, and because of the high professional standards of the force, as exemplified last week in the incident at Princes Gate. Therefore, one might think that their high professional reputation would protect them from mindless and politically motivated hostility. But that is not so.

Whatever the source of the criticism, the press and the broadcasting authorities are only too eager to publish sensational allegations of corruption and misconduct made against the police. They do so knowing the inherent unreliability of such stories and the totally unrepresentative nature of such individual cases that are proved. In seeking to sensationalise such stories, the press and media besmirch the good name of the police generally and undermine public confidence in our system of justice. Relatively little prominence was given to the findings of the jury that Jimmy Kelly died in police custody from natural causes, whereas acres of newsprint over many months were devoted to allegations that he was killed by the police. Also, in the aftermath of the Southall riots the press made much of the fact that one demonstrator died from a blow to the head but very little of the fact that in the same incident nearly 100 policemen were physically attacked and injured.

The effect of all this is to put the police and the Government constantly on the defensive—to explain and to placate criticism, almost to apologise for the fact that the police have to do their duty when, in fact, the Government should be seeking to make law enforcement more effective. They defend the existence of the special patrol group when they should seek to form mobile reserve groups in every city. They create a huge bureaucratic apparatus for the investigation of complaints when they should be getting more men out on the beat. I want to focus attention on those aspects of the police that are more important for their quality and efficiency and more deserving of urgent attention than the comparatively trivial matters that are taken up by the press.

The biggest scandal in police affairs is the pathetic inadequacy of the numbers presently employed. We raise our hands in horror at the appalling increase in the figures of crimes, especially violent crimes, yet we do virtually nothing to increase the numbers of police to cope with it. Since 1960, the total strength of the police in this country has increased by half, but the number of reported indictable—that is, serious—offences has trebled in that time.

For London, where the problem is greatest and where indictable offences have risen astronomically, the figures are appalling. The strength of the Metropolitan Police has remained below 23,000 for the past 50 years. We had 21,020 in 1921 and the number was still only 22,408 in 1977. Yet during that period the total strength of the police outside London rose from 38,498 to 97,560. We have the ridiculous position that the police force whose size has remained virtually static for the past 50 years is also the force for which the Government are directly responsible.

The setting of a figure for the establishment of individual police forces is pure fantasy. The figure for the establishment in London is particularly unreal. Apart from the fact that it has not been seriously reviewed for 50 years—it stands today at 26,628—it takes no account of the special demands made on London police which are not made on the same scale, or at all, on provincial forces. Public order, race relations, terrorism, hooliganism, Notting Hill carnivals, road and air traffic and tourism make demands on London policemen far greater than those experienced elsewhere, while protection of royalty and visiting Heads of State and VIPs, diplomatic protection and security of Government and parliamentary personnel and buildings are special to London.

It is no wonder, in view of all that, that there are no policemen to go on the beat, yet there is no greater deterrent to crime, no better conciliator of local disputes and no better promoter of race relations than the "bobby" on the beat. We do ourselves great injury by failing to provide for him.

So much for the inherent problem of manpower shortage. What of its effect on the efficiency of the police as a whole? It is not merely because the level of crimes has increased that we are compelled to examine the present force establishments. It is because policing a modern, civilised, highly sophisticated society makes special demands on police manpower which make it impossible to maintain an adequate level in the streets and in the routine role of law enforcement.

The need for an adequate mobile reserve of police officers to deal with sudden demands on police manpower is manifest. Call it a special patrol group or what you will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the need was made manifest by the Bristol riots. There was in Bristol the most appalling breakdown of law and order seen in this country for many years. As the magazine Police said at the time: The long term consequences of those six hours of unbridled lawlessness go far beyond the hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage to property, the stoning and the looting. The issues have ominous significance for all major cities with inner areas like St. Paul's and large concentrations of alienated young blacks. In particular, what happened there is of direct concern to every police force in the country. The most significant fact to emerge from what we already know about the Bristol incident is that the original 40 police officers deployed for the raid on the cafe had grown to no more than 70 before the withdrawal took place more than two hours later. Apparently it took four hours after that to get reinforcements.

Fortunately, London is better prepared, but what other police forces have a contingency plan to cope with serious public disorder and a mobile force that they can call upon?

I turn to the effect of shortages of both men and money on the morale of the police. Police morale is not simply a matter of pay. Since the implementation of the excellent Lord Edmund-Davies report, the level of pay of the police is satisfactory. A higher rate would not necessarily fill the vacancies. Morale depends on many things besides pay. There is the question of time off for overtime duty. In some forces, the constraints on expenditure have imposed unreasonable restrictions on the amount of overtime that may be worked. Yet the alternative—time off in lieu of overtime worked—is not available because of the insufficiency of manpower available to cover proper manning levels. The result is that a high proportion of offences goes uninvestigated. In London especially, the burden of responsibility on the police to maintain and enforce the law and to investigate and prosecute crime is beyond their present capacity to sustain. The case load on the CID is enormous and well beyond its present resources.

The evidence exists for all to see—the limit on permissible overtime and the rationing of fuel for patrol cars. Some provincial forces limit their patrol cars to absurdly small distances per day. There axe only small numbers of typists and typewriters available in police stations to cope with mountains of paper work. Police are absent from whole areas of London on occasions on special duty. Everyone knows that it is hard to find a "bobby" on the beat. It is left to retired police officers, such as Sir Robert Mark, to tell the truth, namely, that police numbers are wholly insufficient to cope with all the demands made upon them.

What is the effect of the Government's defence attitude towards the police on police efficiency and morale? I have spoken of the unwillingness of the Government to be positively enthusiastic about police and to seek ways of promoting their efficiency and welfare. I believe that the Government should seek to amend the law to improve police methods of investigation. For too long, our criminal law and our law of evidence have been slanted in favour of the accused when it should be neutral. This attitude stems from the days of capital punishment. Now that there is no capital punishment, we should set about revising the law to put it in its proper position and balance. There is no need for the so-called right to silence. Juries should be allowed to draw the commonsense inference from an accused's silence. There is no longer any need for the police to abide by the strict terms of the Bankers Books Evidence Act. It should be possible to get access to a bank account, before a prosecution is started and while inquiries are proceeding, on an application to a magistrate without going through the formalities required by the Act.

On the other hand, there are many current attempts to weaken the power of the police. I can refer to at least one—the investigation into the so-called "sus" law that has aroused the concern of many intelligent people who should know better. It is a law that applies nowadays to the petty thief, the pickpocket and the wretched individual who steals from parked cars, handbags or whenever he thinks that no one is looking. It serves a useful purpose. I hope that, whatever the Government decide to do about the "sus" law, the police will retain the right to arrest people reasonably suspected of being about to commit an offence.

Naturally, in a force of more than 100,000 men and women there are bound to be some who spoil the record. There are comparatively few dishonest and unsuitable policemen who should be dealt with strictly. But the scale of the bureaucratic machine, costing £3 million a year and involving 184 officers, that looks into complaints is not justified; nor is the immense palaver that is aroused when an inquiry into corruption or other misconduct is in progress. I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to bring Operation Countryman to an early end. Leading counsel should be put on to it, if necessary, the whole time, but the agony should not be prolonged, a moment longer than necessary. It has simply be- come a vehicle for grievances against the Metropolitan Police and is doing great harm to all police morale.

On the whole, we have a splendid police force that deserves the praise given recently. The Government should support it wholeheartedly in its great battle against crime, violence and lawlessness.