Government Reductions in Policing

Debate between Simon Hart and Paul Farrelly

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a constabulary that is about as far away from my own as it is possible to go. All I can say on behalf of my own area is that we simply want our police officers to be solving crime and, better still, preventing crime—dealing with the realities of day-to-day life rather than engaging in spurious PR exercises and form filling of the sort that has dominated the political agenda for some time and that this Government are rightly seeking to reduce.

There is talk of its being easier simply not to replace chief superintendents—I almost said chief constables, which was a bit of a Freudian slip—after their 30-year service has come to an end. Of course there is a temptation to take that approach but, certainly in our case, it is balanced with the clear need seriously to address the issue of back-office support that other hon. Members have mentioned. That has been slightly misrepresented, because huge importance is attached to back-office police work as distinct from back-office administrative activity. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a little disingenuous in not making that clear separation.

[Paul Farrelly]

I mentioned the 149 police officers being forced to resign after 30 years’ service in Staffordshire, but I did not mention the six police stations, including my own in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that are being closed because of the cuts. These are police stations that survived Margaret Thatcher and are now falling victim to Cameron-Clegg. Would the hon. Gentleman designate those as much-needed assets or merely back-office functions that can be reorganised willy-nilly?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman conveniently takes me on to my next point.

I do not think anybody on the Government Benches—obviously I cannot speak for the Home Secretary—has gone into these challenges with any great sense of glee based on any great ideology. It is grim reality time—responsibility time. I was fortunate enough to operate in the private sector before I came to this place. I was responsible for 90 employees and a budget of £5 million. Every single year I was forced to reduce that budget, every single year I went to my departmental head, every single year they said they could not do it, and every single year they said it would never be the same again and the end of civilisation as we know it, and—guess what?—after 10 years we had a lean, efficient machine that served its members responsibly and cost-effectively. What it boils down to—my own chief constable has said this publicly and privately—is that police officers are well capable of applying the same corporate disciplines in the police world that most people out there in the real world apply to their businesses. We should not automatically assume that a new approach to efficient policing will necessarily lead to compromises in safety.

The Government’s proposals take us back to relatively recent levels of funding, not to the dark ages. They remove a thick layer of bureaucracy that I thought everybody in this House was keen to see rid of, as well as members of the public and the police force. These proposals take police officers out of their offices and put them back where we need them: solving and preventing crime, and closer to their communities.

The scandal of this motion, and the reason I took part in this debate—I had no serious intention of doing so, but I was driven to it by frustration—is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting vulnerable people in society or defending jobs in the police, and everything to do with furthering Labour’s political aims. To do that in the run-up to a Welsh Assembly election when so many things are at stake, and to do so at the expense of the fear of vulnerable people in society and police officers worried about their jobs, is an absolute scandal. For that reason alone, the motion should fail dismally.