| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I thank the Home Secretary for that statement and I join in his congratulations to the police--the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the transport police. I also add congratulations to the staff in the LIFFE building, who acted with immense resourcefulness when confronted with a profoundly unpleasant situation.
Nevertheless, I wish to ask some important questions. Does the situation that arose in the City on Friday lead the Home Secretary to consider that he should reverse the fall in police numbers? Will he confirm that the City of London has experienced a 7 per cent. fall in police strength since May 1997 and that what it now has is below its 1979 resource level? In those circumstances, is he satisfied that the City of London police had sufficient officers to cope with the events on Friday and would have sufficient officers to cope with such events if they should unfortunately arise in the future?
Although I appreciate that the City of London police were reinforced by the Met on that occasion, it is also true--and I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm it--that that force itself has suffered a cut of more than 571 since he has been in office. Will he also confirm that the fall in the City of London police manpower in that period is 66 and that there has been a reduction in the budget for the City of London police from £57.1 million in 1998-99 to £55.5 million in 1999-2000? Will he confirm that, under this Government, police numbers have fallen by nearly 800, by contrast with an inherited increase of 4,694? How does that affect the sort of operation that became necessary on Friday?
In view of these events, can the Home Secretary tell the House what, if anything, he intends to do to halt the decline in police numbers? Will he give us his view of what the strength of the police should be? Given the lessons of Friday for future disturbances and the role that might be played by the mounted police, is he satisfied about the strength of that division? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or to deny that there are plans to reduce the numbers or the role of the mounted division?
Given the availability of information about the proposed demonstration on the internet for, as the Home Secretary said, a considerable time before it took place, what discussions did he have with the City of London commissioner about the likely threat to public order? What information did he have about the nature of the
organisations behind the protest, and what efforts were made to gain more intelligence about them before the problems were encountered on Friday?
Demonstrations, however peaceful they are designed to be, always present hazards. Given that the police were expecting to confront a demonstration with normal hazards, and that in reality they had to face a highly organised and pre-planned riot, is he satisfied with the intelligence operation on this occasion? What lessons for the future does he draw from that operation?
When was the Home Secretary first made aware of what was called the carnival against capitalism? As a result of such information as was available, what assessment was made--and what was communicated to him--of the likely threat that the protest posed to the business of the City of London and to public order?
I recognise that he may not be able to respond at this stage, but can the Home Secretary give an estimate of the cost to the public purse of the police, emergency services and other related activities involved in Friday's disorder?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in such circumstances, closed circuit television is of massive importance? Given that importance, and his own rather belated recognition of it in making available extra funding, will he take this opportunity to congratulate the previous Conservative Government, who introduced CCTV, on their foresight, initiative and spending?
Mr. Straw:
Of course, I would congratulate any Government who introduced CCTV, but I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know about the proportions involved. When we came to office, only £1 million of free money was available for closed circuit television. We are now investing £150 million--[Interruption.] I greatly regret that the right hon. Lady makes partisan comments on an issue on which the whole House ought to be united, but I feel obliged to respond.
The right hon. Lady asked whether I discussed the matter with the City commissioner. I did not do so personally, but I did discuss it with the Lord Mayor seven weeks ago, and I corresponded with him about it. However, my officials discussed the matter in some detail with the commissioner and his staff.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will forgive me for not going into detail about the nature of intelligence gathering, and that she will know that there are very good reasons why I cannot do so. However, I assure her that I meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis each month. That detailed meeting covers all public order difficulties likely to arise in the foreseeable future, and this protest was included in that pre-planning.
Lessons for the future always arise from events such as Friday's. It is for that reason, as I have already announced, that the commissioner of police for the City of London, Mr. Nove, will make a full report to his police authority. In addition, the police have available the recent thematic report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary entitled "Keeping the Peace", which examines the policing of such public order events.
I turn now to the numbers of police officers available in such circumstances, the issue that the right hon. Lady raised first and to which I am delighted to respond. As I hope that she will be aware, the relatively small size of the City of London police force means that the numbers
of officers made available for policing demonstrations in the City--especially when they are of such potential gravity--include many from the Metropolitan police service, under the mutual aid provisions. I discussed the issue of numbers with the City commissioner this morning. He authorised me to say that he regards questions about the small variations in the total numbers of police across London as "a red herring", and that he had all the police that he needed.
The right hon. Lady wants reassurance that we are reversing the decline in the numbers of police in London. Her amnesia on the issue is astonishing. Between 1992 and 1997, when she and her colleagues were responsible for setting the police budget in London, numbers in the Metropolitan police area dropped by 1,962--nearly 400 a year. We have stabilised those numbers. Police numbers for 1998-99 were virtually stable, with a reduction of just 21, compared with the reduction of 400 a year for which she was responsible. We are looking forward to similar stability this year. The issue of police numbers is thus an own goal for the right hon. Lady.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
May we express our concern for the police officers who were injured and our appreciation of the work of the police from the three forces? Is the Home Secretary aware that the problem with police numbers tends to relate to community policing, not to finding enough police officers to deal with a riot?
Is there not a serious difference between the view of events that the Home Secretary presented in his statement and that which appeared in much of the media? The media presentation is of a largely peaceful demonstration that was spoiled by a small disruptive minority, while the right hon. Gentleman has painted a picture of a much larger element intent on violence, or at least dangerously disruptive activities; and he has said that the organisers of the main demonstration were not prepared to co-operate with the police's attempts to ensure that it passed off peacefully. Is it not important to establish which is the correct view, to adapt police tactics accordingly in any similar situation, and to make the public aware of something as serious as a large-scale, organised attempt to disrupt?
Troublesome and expensive though the violence was, does the Home Secretary agree that it will neither stop the City from carrying out its important economic role nor do anything to further the legitimate ethical, environmental and world poverty concerns that many of us want to address to international business and to Governments?
Mr. Straw:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and their tone. We are all used to there being two different stories of what happened in such situations. One story is told by the police and those who observed the events and another is told by those who were involved in violence and are trying to excuse the violence that they have perpetrated on others, particularly--and usually--the police. As far as we can judge, the organisers were intent on violent disruption from the moment they thought of the demonstration. We can tell that from the fact that they made no effort to contact the police and seek the co-operation for which the London police services are renowned with peaceful demonstrations. When the City of London police sought co-operation from the organisers,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |