I rise to call attention to the difficulties faced by Derbyshire police force, currently under the management of Derbyshire county council. I am pleased to recognise the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) here tonight. I have no complaint against the police themselves. Derbyshire police officers, men and women, uniformed, detectives and civilians, are outstanding people and perform their difficult task in that county with good humour, courtesy and competence. Indeed, police at all levels are well respected and trusted by my constituents. I am also glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) here tonight.

The problem is that the police in Derbyshire are forced to do their job hampered and hindered quite deliberately by the county authority. The results are truly appalling, as demonstrated in the recent savagely critical report by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary published in December 1990, based on an inspection carried out between 16 and 20 July 1990. For example, in paragraph 1.8, the inspector says: The picture of Derbyshire police force portrayed during the inspection is mixed, but all too often one of deterioration of infrastructure and morale. More than 40 urgent recommendations are listed in that report.

Derbyshire covers 1,000 square miles and the police force has to look after 1 million people. Officially, the establishment is a full one. We have 1,791 officers in post out of an establishment of 1,793. But first of all, the establishment is not enough. Each Derbyshire police officer polices 63 more people than the national average. The last time that there was any increase in police numbers was in 1987. Since then, the police committee has refused to guarantee its part of the funding for increases, so we have lost all the increases.

Nor does the problem relate only to uniformed officers. In Derbyshire, we are particularly dependent on civilians, with a higher than average civilian establishment to population size. But worse, the civilian posts are not filled either and there is a continual shortfall. The uniformed officers then have to do the job of the civilians. For example, there should be 309 traffic wardens. That is the official establishment. In post at the time of the report there were 84. As a result, police officers are frequently required to carry out traffic warden functions. Similarly, there should be 14 more control room operators, who are supposed to be civilians according to official Derbyshire police force management policy—but there are not, so the job has to be done by uniformed officers.

Many civilian posts have been outstanding since 1988 and the average length of time taken to fill a civilian post is six months. That is expensive, it withdraws beat officers from their duties and it means that police are frequently not visible at all on the streets of Derby and in the Derbyshire villages.

That also increases the strain on all the officers. As the report shows, the number of days lost through sickness has been increasing steadily—an increase of more than 19 per cent. between 1987 and 1989. More worrying, the time lost through injury on duty jumped by 38 per cent. in a year. The situation is a matter of considerable concern to all our constituents and most of all to those serving in the force.

The report quotes many similarly worrying features about staff, equipment and buildings. The fingerprint bureau should have 13 officers, but it has an establishment of nine with only six in post. As paragraph 4.30 of the report says, the position is untenable and the department teeters on the brink of complete collapse. We have only 16.4 marked vehicles per hundred officers, whereas similar forces have 20.5—25 per cent. more. There are no armed response vehicles. There are no trained accident investigators. There is insufficient protection for the police in cases of public disorder. The police computing facilities are inadequate, unsafe, inefficient and obsolescent. The main processes on the command and control system failed 128 times in a year. The inspector says: The normal workload of the computer grossly exceeds the design capacity by 227 per cent. The casualty bureau is totally inadequate and we are told that the system would fail under any realistic pressure". Some 45,000 crime reports have to be read and analysed manually, which is almost unbelievable in a force this size. There is no female police surgeon. There are inadequate facilities for rape and child abuse cases. No drug squad member is trained to nationally recognised standards. Derbyshire constabulary lacks surveillance capacity and has only limited access to vehicles suitable for covert operations.

It is not just personnel and equipment that create problems, but buildings as well. The last new police station was completed in 1981. The county failed to submit any building plans from 1987 onwards. One station in Derby, Peartree, which was intended to have a 20-year life when it was erected in 1945 but is still there, is nearing the point of total decay and is an insult to police, civilians and the public with foul toilets, a temperature in the office at the time of inspection of 98 deg F, a badly leaking roof and various other major problems. The inspector says that the state of repair of police buildings is generally quite extraordinary. But it is not that money is not available. Indeed, he goes on to say: The fact that moneys allocated and approved for building maintenance have been consistently underspent for the past four financial years seems irreconcilable with the building deterioration evident during the inspection. In fact nearly £168,000 has been underspent in those budgets in the past four years. The inspector is also extremely critical of the state of police housing. In fact, savings are made on the police budget and the report says very cautiously in paragraph 2.72 that these savings may be spent in another area of County Council concern. In other words, the county has the money, but it chooses not to spend it on the police.

In one area, Derbyshire county council is very careful with money—other people's money. It charges £22 for a neighbourhood watch sign or £112 if it comes with a pole. In the HM inspector's words, this appears a direct disincentive to this priority crime prevention initiative. As a result, complaints are up by 22 per cent. and only 57 per cent. of respondents to Derbyshire county council's own survey in 1989 reported satisfaction with the police. I must say that I think it is the height of cynicism for Derbyshire county council to spend public money doing a public opinion survey on attitudes to the police when the main problem comes from the county's failure to spend money allocated to the police.

Worst of all, crime rates are climbing in Derbyshire, in 1989 crime was up by 13 per cent. on the previous year. That is higher than in similar forces. In the six months before the inspection in 1990, crime climbed by a further 22 per cent. and the detection rate was falling. Indeed, the detection rate was well below that of similar forces. This is partly because we do not have enough police and partly because they are not well equipped. It is also partly became they are forced to do the wrong jobs. Most of all, it is because the police do not have the support of those responsible for the Derbyshire county council and the police authority.

The problems mainly arise because of the control systems exercised over the police, which are unbelievably bureaucratic and cumbersome. I quote the report again: In Derbyshire budgetary control has yet to be devolved to the Chief Constable. That is normal practice elsewhere. Constant interference by councillors means that the chief constable has no opportunity for virement or to manage his budgets efficiently.