Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Ed Balls(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I hope that that will not be the case. The chief constable of West Yorkshire police has said the opposite to me. His priority will be to protect neighbourhood policing, if possible.
That point brings me to a smear that has been propagated regularly by those on the Government Front Bench. On the basis of the HMIC report, they claim—in my view erroneously—that only 11% of policing has been visible at any one time and that the other 89% has somehow been wasted on bureaucracy and form-filling. The fact is that 50% of that 89% comprises the policing of organised crime and domestic violence, criminal investigation departments, and work on drug and alcohol policies. Perhaps such policing is not done in neighbourhood teams, but it is vital nevertheless. It is discounted by those on the Government Front Bench as waste and bureaucracy. Frankly, that is an outrageous slur.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he would have cut police funding by £1 billion a year, which is the HMIC proposal, and that under his proposals, there would have been no cut in police numbers. Will he explain how he would achieve £1 billion of savings?
Ed Balls
I fear that we may be wasting time by going over the same point, but I will explain it again. HMIC said that a cut of more than 12% in central Government funding would lead to a cut in visible, front-line police numbers. The coalition is cutting central Government funding not by 12% but by 20%. As the previous Home Secretary made clear, on the basis of the HMIC report, savings could be made in procurement and through collaboration—precisely the sort of cross-force collaboration that will be undermined by elected police commissioners. It is possible to do that without cuts to front-line policing. It is the Minister’s 20% cuts that will lead to a reduction in police numbers, as is accepted universally by police officers across the country.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree and the Home Secretary said exactly the same thing today. Such tactics are a matter for the operational responsibility of the police, but such major decisions have to be agreed with the police authorities that hold them to account locally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made good speeches supporting our plans to toughen alcohol licensing. I welcome the Opposition’s support for those measures, but what a far cry it is from the claims of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) that Labour’s 24-hour drinking laws were about
“enriching the quality of people’s lives.”
How naive that was. We have seen the result of those laws—violence and disorder in our city and town centres. So, Labour now repudiates its ill-judged experiment with the so-called café culture, but it is clearly going to oppose the measures on police reform for opposition’s sake. That is not the position of the former Minister with responsibility for policing, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), however. Based on the notes I have seen, I think she made a thoughtful speech on the importance of accountability, although we may differ on the particular.
The shadow Home Secretary’s arguments against our proposals for police and crime commissioners are deeply unconvincing and he keeps getting things wrong. He attacked our statement on police funding today and got the numbers wrong. Last week, he said that the inspectorate of constabulary’s figures were “corrupt and erroneous”, but was then forced to retract those words. Today, he told the House that police and crime commissioners would have the power “to direct” policing, but that is simply wrong. Chief constables will retain control and direction of their forces, as it says in clause 2, which he should read. We are determined to protect the operational independence of chief constables. Police and crime commissioners will be able to set the policing plan with the agreement of the chief constable but they will not direct policing and nor should they.
The shadow Home Secretary said that the commissioners will be elected solely to run policing, but that will not be their sole job. They will be police and crime commissioners with wider powers and devolved budgets from the Home Office to fight crime and engage in crime prevention with the local community. If the right hon. Gentleman has such a good case, why does he need to invent objections to the Bill? He continues to assert that the commissioners will appoint political advisers, but we have repeatedly made it clear that we will not allow that. We do not want to politicise policing and we do not want spin in policing. We will not take any lectures about political advisers and spin from the friend of McBride and Whelan.
Ed Balls
I do not want to get into personal invective or to drag the important issue of policing down to the gutter. I have been told by a number of people who attended the meeting of the Association of Police Authorities at which the Minister spoke that he said that, if he were elected as a police and crime commissioner, the first decision he would take would be to appoint a political adviser. Was everyone else at that meeting mistaken or has he forgotten attending the event and saying those things?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong and our intention is clear—we keep repeating it: we do not want political advisers and we have legislated for that in the Bill.
The Labour party complains about the cost of the commissioners and that complaint was repeated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have made it quite clear that commissioners must cost no more than the police authorities they replace. Yes, there will be the cost of holding the elections once every four years—an average £12.5 million a year. That is less than 0.1% of police spend, and the money will not come from force budgets anyway.
Nick Herbert
Labour’s manifesto at the last election proposed referendums five times over—on the alternative vote, on reform of the other place, on mayors, on further powers for the Welsh Assembly and on the euro. Did Labour Members advance arguments against those democratic pledges on the grounds that they would cost money? Of course not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) pointed out, of course there is a cost to running elections. Police authorities do not have that cost because they are not democratic. That is exactly what we want to fix.
Nick Herbert
For all Labour’s objections, one could be forgiven for forgetting that the previous Government twice proposed to democratise police authorities. So what happened? They backed down, twice. That is the difference between the previous Government and the coalition. The Opposition retreated from reform at the first whiff of opposition and we are determined to see it through. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”]
One thing is clear. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may be opportunistically opposing this reform, but we know what they really think about the need for it.
“Only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical.”
Does that sound familiar to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)? It should do. He said it just two years ago.
Is that too long ago? Let us look at what the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said just two weeks ago. He told the Home Affairs Committee that “the present accountability of police authorities was not optimal.” What a masterpiece of understatement. If police authorities are sub-optimal, what proposals does he have for reform? None. He is silent on the issue. Today the right hon. Gentleman admitted that “there is more we can do to deepen accountability at force level.” What? He will not say. He is against reform of the governance of policing, but he is for it, just as he is against cuts while admitting that he would cut police budgets by more than £1 million a year. Apparently these can be delivered without losing a single police officer. That is what he said today.
Nick Herbert
On point after point, Labour Members get it wrong. They say that the constituencies—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Police Funding
Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Ed Balls(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate, and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the report that his Committee has just published. I am sorry that he is not here to listen to these final contributions, but I understand why he has had to leave. The Committee’s report was very helpful, and we look forward to its further reports.
There have been a number of important and useful contributions to the debate, and I hope to address them during the course of my remarks. I am afraid I did not think that the shadow Minister’s response did justice to a number of the serious points that were raised by Labour Members as well as by coalition Members about the importance of police deployment, how savings are to be driven in the police and the value of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) particularly mentioned the important role that police authorities will have in the next few months in driving value for money and helping police forces deliver leadership.
Let us begin by discussing what we agree about. We all agree about the importance of the police and of valuing them. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was absolutely right to take the opportunity, as I always try to do, to thank the police for what they do. I am sure that they are in action once again just outside the House in relation to the protest that is being run again today. Every day, police officers act to keep us safe and many of them take risks in doing so, and we should thank them for their work. They are an immensely important public service.
I apologise to Members of all parties, because I am afraid I will not be able to indicate the provisional grants for individual forces today. We will announce them before Christmas, and there will be the usual parliamentary debate on them next year. As all Members will understand, I cannot therefore comment on individual forces’ specific grant issues. I can say that I am paying the closest attention to hon. Members’ representations, including those from the West Midlands force area. I will continue to do so after the provisional allocations are announced.
The backdrop to the debate is the spending review. Given the contributions of most right hon. and hon. Members, I do not think it appropriate to rehearse at great length why the Government have to take the action we are taking. I would just point out that we believe it necessary to deal with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, and that debt interest payments alone this year, at more than £40 billion, are far greater than the combined spend of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
We announced a reduction in police spending in the review because we believe that dealing with the deficit is essential, and that the police can and must pay their share—
Nick Herbert
The police must pay their share in reducing the deficit. Contrary to what the Opposition suggest—that a poor deal was secured for the police—the deal was rather better than expected in relation to non-protected Departments.
It is important to point out that the fact that the reduction in central Government spending on the police is 20% over four years—that is clear from the settlement—does not mean a 20% reduction in the amount of money that forces will have over the period. That is an immensely important point, but I am not sure that the Opposition have fully grasped it. There is a straightforward reason: forces do not raise all their money from central Government—on average, they raise getting on for a third of their money from central Government, or nearly £1 in every £3—and the money that they raise locally is not being cut.
As has been pointed out, that means that if we assume both the OBR forecast of reasonable rises in the precept based on—[Interruption.] The OBR forecast is based on the historic trend and the precept freeze, which the Government are funding next year. That reduces the cut in police force funding over the four-year period to 14% in real terms. The Opposition must explain why they believe that the 12% cut that they concede they would have made to policing, based on HMIC advice, would leave forces strong and secure—I assume that they would not otherwise have proposed that—but that a 14% cut is Armageddon, with all the consequences that the hon. Member for Gedling says will flow?
The difference between a 12% cut in real terms and a 14% cut at the end of the four-year period is £200 million, and the Government are making specific additional proposals, to which my hon. Friends referred, including the review of pay and conditions, which is being set up by Tom Winsor. We also expect the police to take part in the two-year pay freeze, subject to the agreement of the police negotiating board, which will close that £200 million gap. Labour Members simply have not answered the question. Why do they feel able to go around campaigning on, and scaremongering about, the impact of the spending reductions that forces are being asked to make? They are clearly and simply seeking to make political capital out of the situation, yet they would have cut the police budget themselves, in precisely the same order of magnitude as that which the Government have announced—the availability of resources to the police would have been precisely the same. They are perpetrating on the public a great fraud about their position.
Nick Herbert
I will make a bit of progress because I am short of time, and then I will give way.
We are confident that these savings can be made because, in part, of the evidence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, backed up the Audit Commission. HMIC has said that it is possible for forces to make savings of more than £1 billion a year—12% of the annual budget—through things such as improving productivity, cutting costs, sharing services and addressing savings in the back and middle offices of police forces. In addition, further savings can be realised through areas such as better procurement, although some of those savings were included in the HMIC report.
It is significant that the hon. Member for Gedling and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) never refer to those issues. They never talk about the savings that could be made by forces, and they are simply unwilling to engage in the necessary debate about how to increase and improve deployment, given the fiscal constraints that confront us.
Ed Balls
To avoid any further inadvertent misleading of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that the HMIC report that refers to 12% deliverable cuts refers to cuts over four years and, secondly, that it refers to cuts in central Government grant? The HMIC report referred to 12% cuts in central Government grant; the Government are proposing a 20% cut in central Government grant. Will he confirm the difference in those figures and that that was what HMIC recommended?
Nick Herbert
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman understood this. The HMIC report was not referring to grant; it was referring to the savings that can be made by police forces. I strongly advise him to read the report again. It is important to understand the savings that could be made by police forces. Hon. Members could then work together sensibly and constructively, as urged by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, to support forces in delivering savings.
Police forces and authorities spend about £2.8 billion every year on equipment, goods and services. Ending the practice of procuring things in 43 different ways could drive down the costs of goods, services and equipment by £200 million annually by the end of the spending review period. Furthermore, there is the issue of IT. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows how many different IT systems there are across our 43 forces. There are 2,000 different systems and 5,000 staff involved with them. The information systems improvement strategy programme on savings in IT could save another £180 million annually by transforming how police information systems are developed, procured and implemented. We are convinced that further savings could be made.
It is important for hon. Members to reflect on the fact that half of all spend by police forces is on the middle and back office. The people in those offices are not involved directly in crime fighting activity—although they do important things, such as providing direct support for the front line or keeping the organisation running. Not only is half of all spend made in those areas, but a quarter of all police officers—I am talking about sworn officers—are employed there. HMIC believes that significant savings can be made in the middle and back office by better management while, at the same time, protecting the front line.
Nick Herbert
I cannot pre-announce the grant determination. I met the hon. Gentleman this morning, and I will of course pay attention to the particular circumstances of West Midlands police if they are receiving less funding from local government. However, I would also like to draw his attention to what the chief constable of West Midlands has said:
“I remain absolutely confident that we will continue to protect and serve people in the West Midlands in the way they expect.”
That is a familiar message, because it is also the one being sent out by chief constables up and down the country, who are rising to the challenge of delivering services.
While the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is here, I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for what he said on Monday, when he described the figure of 11% of force strength being visible and available to the public as a “smear” and a “corrupt and erroneous statistic”. That was a reference to the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I find it difficult to believe how the right hon. Gentleman could describe something in such a report as a “corrupt and erroneous statistic” or say that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was seeking to “smear” police forces.
There is an issue about the visibility and availability of police officers, and we have to address it. The report said that
“general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low. Several factors have combined to produce this ‘thin blue line’ of which shift patterns, risk management, bureaucracy and specialisation are the most significant”—
bureaucracy being one of the factors that needs to be addressed. The real question for this House is why, at a time when we had achieved record resourcing for policing, a record number of police officers and a record size of the police work force, we had visibility and availability at only about 11% of force strength. I agree with the inspectorate of constabulary that that figure is too low. We need to have a sensible debate about how we can address shift patterns, bureaucracy and the drift of officers into specialist units, so that we can protect that visibility and availability, which all my hon. Friends—indeed, all Members of the House—want to improve.
Ed Balls
I will happily take this opportunity to say that I wrote to Sir Denis O’Connor yesterday on the matter, and I copied the letter to the Policing Minister. In that letter I say that I have not criticised—and will not criticise—the 11% statistic, which was drawn up by HMIC. What I have consistently criticised is the way in which that statistic has been used, in a misleading and smearing way, by Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister—to do down the important work of the police. The Minister says that 11% of the time is spent on visible policing, with the other 89% wasted on bureaucracy. That excludes people working on organised crime, in CID, on domestic violence, or on child abuse. That is the smear.
Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just read out the HMIC report, which says:
“A re-design of the system…has the potential”—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention. I think that he has made his point, and the intervention was getting a little long. It would be very helpful if when putting forcefully the arguments on either side of the House, all Members could avoid casting any aspersions on the correctness of another person’s view.
Nick Herbert
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly agree with that. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has been caught out—
Nick Herbert
He has been caught out. I note that, in his letter to the chief inspector of constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman did not apologise for describing the chief inspector’s report as a “smear” or “corrupt and erroneous”, but that is what he said on Monday. I hesitate, after Monday, to advise hon. Members about using their words carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman should learn that he needs to choose his words more carefully when talking about the inspector’s report. I am sure that he will do so in future.
It is essential that we address the bureaucracy—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Ed Balls(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
As my hon. Friend knows, we prioritise counter-terrorism funding to policing, and it has received a measure of protection in the funding settlement. We will, of course, continue to prioritise it.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is having a busy and rather stressful afternoon. I was hoping to ask the Home Secretary about police funding and numbers—and it looked like he thought that she would answer this question too. In any case, may I ask him about the Home Secretary’s Cabinet-level spending negotiations? I hope that she has filled him in on what went on. This week, the cross-party association of police officers wrote to the Home Office to ask for the spending review settlement for the police—20% front-end loaded cuts, followed by 6% next year and 8% the year after—to be reopened in order to
“avoid long term damage to policing capability”
and to protect the front line. Back in May, the Prime Minister told the BBC:
“Any Cabinet minister…who comes to me and says ‘here are my plans and they involve front line reductions’ will be sent back to their department to go away and think again.”
If the Prime Minister has not told the Home Secretary to go away and think again, will she listen to police chiefs up and down the country urging her to do just that?
Nick Herbert
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Association of Police Authorities. The House might not have heard that he told the Home Affairs Committee seminar in Cannock on 22 November that this is a tighter environment for police spending and would be under any Government. He admitted that there would be cuts in police spending. We inherited £44 billion of unspecified spending cuts from his Government, and we are having to deal with the deficit, taking the decisions that he has forced upon us.
Ed Balls
The deputy to the Home Secretary will have to do a lot better than that. These cuts are front-end loaded and go well beyond the 12% over four years that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said was do-able. I am pleased that he has not repeated the 11% smear against our police, which he knows is a completely corrupt and erroneous statistic. Hon. Members should look at the numbers. In north Wales, 230 officers are to go; in the west midlands, 1,100; and in Greater Manchester, 1,387. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police said that
“there will be a reduction in frontline police officer numbers”.
The Home Secretary was not willing to stand up for the police in the spending review, and she is not willing either to stand up in the House and answer my questions on the police. She can refuse to answer my questions, but she cannot refuse to answer the questions from police officers and the public all around the country. Today—
Nick Herbert
First, may I say that I am absolutely astonished by the right hon. Gentleman’s attack on the figure of only 11% of total police strength being visible and available to the public at any one time? That was the finding of a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and if he takes issue with it, perhaps he will speak to the inspectorate. I think it is disgraceful that he should attack the figure in that way. The report stated:
“The fact is that general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low.”
The right hon. Gentleman also quoted the chief constable of Greater Manchester police. In announcing the changes that he was making to the force, the chief constable said that
“the end result will be more resources put into frontline policing and a more efficient and effective service for the people of Greater Manchester.”
Instead of scaremongering in this way, and instead of attacking the correction that we are having to make, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept responsibility for bequeathing the deficit to this country that has meant that we have had to deal with public expenditure.
Public Disorder (NUS Rally)
Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Ed Balls(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on yesterday’s public disorder at the National Union of Students rally. The House will be aware that yesterday, following a peaceful demonstration organised by the NUS, a violent faction directed a series of criminal acts against offices on Millbank. This Government have been clear that we are committed to supporting peaceful protest. Indeed, we included the restoration of the right to peaceful protest in our coalition agreement. However, as the Prime Minister said this morning, we are equally clear that when people are bent on violence and the destruction of property, that is completely unacceptable.
The operational response to the violence is quite rightly a matter for the Metropolitan police, but I want to give the House an early indication of what happened yesterday, the action taken by the police and the follow-up action that will now be necessary. This information was provided at 9 o’clock this morning by the Metropolitan Police Service. The NUS initially predicted that yesterday’s protest would attract around 5,000 demonstrators. On Tuesday, that estimate was revised upwards, to 15,000. The police had planned to deploy around 225 officers to the protest. It is now clear that that deployment was inadequate. As the situation developed during the day, an additional 225 officers were deployed.
In the initial stages, the march passed the Palace of Westminster in an orderly manner. However, that meant that vehicle access to the Palace was not possible for around two and a half hours. At about 1.10 pm, the front of the march reached the rally point at Millbank. At the same time, a group of protesters ran towards the Millbank office complex, which houses Conservative campaign headquarters. Protesters from the main march then seemed to be encouraged by a number of individuals to storm the building and throw missiles. Windows were broken and significant damage to the property was caused. Some protesters also managed to gain entry to the building, and some got on to the roof.
At the height of the disturbance, it is estimated that about 2,000 people were around Millbank. Many appeared not to be directly involved in violence, but it is now clear that a small hard core within this group were intent on violence. Additional officers were then deployed in public order protective equipment. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was also attacked by a small number of protesters. At about 3 pm, the police were informed that members of staff in the Millbank complex were concerned for their safety. They advised them to stay in the building. Officers were deployed to make contact with the staff and secure their safety. That took some time to achieve. By 4 pm, police officers had located the staff members and, over time, arrangements were put in place to escort them from the building. The police then undertook a search of the office complex and made 47 arrests for criminal damage and aggravated trespass. The British Transport police have also made three arrests. Around 250 individuals were also searched, photographed and then released pending further investigation. Forty-one police officers received injuries. A small number were taken to hospital for treatment and were subsequently released.
The police are committed to bringing the criminals who carried out that violence before a court. The whole House will join me in condemning the minority who carried out those violent and criminal acts. There is no place for such behaviour in Britain's democracy. I thank the police officers who were deployed to the scene, and who helped to protect innocent bystanders. They acted with great courage, particularly those who were holding the line until reinforcements arrived.
Yesterday, during the incident, the Home Secretary was in contact with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. She also spoke to the Mayor of London, and I spoke to Kit Malthouse, chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which has responsibility for governance of policing in London. I commend Sir Paul for his swift and candid statement yesterday. I spoke to Kit Malthouse and Sir Paul this morning. The commissioner confirmed that the Metropolitan police will undertake an immediate and thorough review of its operational response to the incident. That will include an examination of why numbers and violence on this scale were not anticipated. The police have to strike a balance between dealing promptly and robustly with violent and unlawful activity on one hand, and allowing the right to protest on the other. Clearly, in this case the balance was wrong, but the decisions are difficult and are not taken lightly.
Let me finish by saying this: yesterday’s protest and the policing clearly did not go to plan. The police will learn the lessons, but the blame and responsibility for yesterday’s appalling scenes of violence lie squarely and solely with those who carried it out.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice for coming to the House and for giving me an advance copy of his statement. Let me start by agreeing that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, which is supported on both sides of the House. Tens of thousands of students and lecturers came to London from across the country yesterday in coaches and with banners, placards and whistles to exercise that right and to make their voices heard about the Government's controversial plan to triple tuition fees.
However, the Minister is right to say, as the Prime Minister said in Seoul last night, that the vandalism and violence that we saw yesterday are completely unacceptable. It was perpetrated by a small minority of thugs who hijacked what was planned to be a legitimate and peaceful demonstration, and in so doing denied tens of thousands of students and lecturers the right to have their voices properly heard.
The Metropolitan police has told me that the National Union of Students worked closely and co-operatively with it before and during yesterday’s events, as it has in the past. The president of the NUS was right yesterday to describe the actions of that small minority as “despicable” and designed to “hijack a peaceful protest.” As the Minister said, there have been 50 arrests so far. Labour Members are clear, as he is, that there is no excuse for such criminal behaviour, and that those responsible must be brought to justice.
It is the job of the police not only to tackle crime, and to protect to the safety of our communities, but to keep public order as they ensure that the law-abiding majority can exercise their democratic right to protest and make their voices heard. The police ensure that thousands of major events and demonstrations pass off peacefully every year, often in difficult circumstances. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to join me in commending, as the Minister has done, the hundreds of officers involved in yesterday’s events, and particularly the small number outside 30 Millbank and Millbank Tower early yesterday afternoon, for their bravery and dedication.
When things go wrong, it is vital to ask questions, to find out what happened, and to learn lessons for the future. We welcome the urgent investigation that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, ordered late yesterday, and his straightforward and responsible admission that those events were “an embarrassment for London” and that there are lessons to be learned. The Met has acknowledged that there was an operational failure, and it seems sensible and appropriate in this instance that it conducts the investigation and reports to the independent Metropolitan Police Authority.
I am sure that that investigation will look at a number of issues, including whether sufficient officers were on duty to police what was expected to be a peaceful demonstration, when estimates of the size of the demonstration were revised upwards from 5,000 to 15,000 and then to 25,000 demonstrators; why the Metropolitan police made the judgment that the demonstration would be peaceful; whether there was any intelligence to suggest preplanning of violent action; whether sufficient back-up was available, and how quickly it was available and able to be deployed; and how operational decisions were made about which buildings to protect.
Wider questions were raised by yesterday’s events that go beyond the direct operational responsibilities of the commissioner and the Metropolitan police, and are rightly matters for the Home Secretary and the Government. Let me ask the Minister whether, given the clear failure of intelligence in this case, the Home Secretary will assess whether the gathering of intelligence by the police and wider security services was sufficient, and sufficiently well co-ordinated. Will the Home Secretary be discussing the procedures for assessing risk and intelligence in advance of such protests to ensure that in future the full risks are understood in advance?
Given that yesterday and on previous occasions, mobile phones and social networking have been used during demonstrations to co-ordinate actions and build momentum during demonstrations, is work under way by the Home Secretary and her Department to support the police in responding to this new challenge and to consider what wider public order issues are raised?
Given that the demonstration was against a controversial aspect of Government policy and that police officers were deployed outside the headquarters of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, did the Home Secretary or her advisers have any advance discussions about possible risks with the Metropolitan police and lead party officials? Was there any pre-warning or planning for staff in those political offices, and are there wider lessons to be learned?
Will the Minister tell us at what time he and the Home Secretary were alerted to the fact that elements in the demonstration were at risk of becoming violent, that they had become violent, and that a serious public order incident was under way? Will the Minister also tell us what plans the Home Secretary has to update the House following the conclusion of both the Metropolitan police investigation and the wider investigations that I hope she has started?
Finally, as the Minister said, the root of yesterday’s events was the fault of no one but a small minority of violent demonstrators whom we all roundly condemn. They are a timely reminder of how we are all reliant on the police to maintain public order and to ensure legitimate and peaceful protest. Let me ask the Minister and the Home Secretary whether they are confident that the police will have the resources that they need in the coming years to deal with threats to our national security, to tackle organised crime, to ensure safe and successful Olympics and Paralympics, to continue visible neighbourhood policing in all our communities, and to ensure public order at major events without—
Ed Balls
I will repeat the question, because some hon. Members did not want to hear it. I am asking for assurance from the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Home Secretary that they are confident that the police will have the resources they need in the coming year to deal with threats to our national security, to tackle organised crime, to ensure safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic games, to continue to provide neighbourhood police visible in all our communities, and to ensure public order at major events without stretching the thin blue line to breaking point.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the importance of peaceful protest, as did I. We should reflect on the fact that the Metropolitan police must deal with around 4,500 demonstrations every year. It has always had to deal with demonstrations, and it will continue to have to do so. He asked about intelligence, and it is clear there are questions about that, but my response is to his wider point about the role of the Home Secretary. These are operational matters for the police, and it is right that the commissioner should investigate them properly and review the failures that have clearly occurred.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point about resources, we are of course confident that sufficient resources have been provided to the police over four years as a result of the spending review to ensure that the public can be kept safe. We believe that savings can be made by police forces while protecting front-line policing services. I would counsel him against seeking to make political capital by trying to link the action that we have had to take to secure savings with this incident. So far as I am aware, no one is suggesting that inadequate resources were available to the Metropolitan police. There is, however, a question about how and when they were deployed. The Metropolitan police now has a record number of police officers and a budget of more than £3.6 billion. It has sufficient resources to deal with such incidents at the front line, and that will continue to be the case. He is very unwise to suggest otherwise and to make political capital out of the incident that has just taken place.