Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-121)
DEPARTMENT OF
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
AND THE
ROYAL PARKS
2 NOVEMBER 2005
Q100 Mr Bacon: Royal Parks Police,
paragraph 1.7. It talks about the merger of The Royal Parks Constabulary
with the Metropolitan Police. Dame Sue, what drove that? Cost?
Dame Sue Street: No. It was primarily
driven by the public order and public safety needs, looking across
London. It seemed extremely desirable that the Metropolitan Police
should take care of the public in the parks.
Q101 Mr Bacon: When you say "looking
across London", that is interesting because where I live,
representing a very rural area, we are often disadvantaged if
there is an incident in the major city, Norwich, because the police
are drawn away from the rural area to deal with what tends to
be a greater crime area, namely the urban area. I would have thought
that the advantage of having a separate constabulary was precisely
that those people were dedicated. They do not get drawn away to
deal with crime in Oxford Street, for example. When you say "looking
across the whole of London", are you saying that those police
should be available all across London and for London's needs as
a whole rather than just for parks, because that is what it sounded
like.
Dame Sue Street: This was the
operational advice from the Met. What drove this was a concern
to ensure that the safety of the public in the parks was as expertly
enforced and had the same access to the resources of the Metropolitan
Police.
Q102 Mr Bacon: Apart from the unfortunate
incidents of slippage and limb breakage by the Diana Fountain,
what evidence was there that The Royal Parks Constabulary were
unable to look after the public in the park?
Dame Sue Street: I do not for
a moment cast aspersions on their ability.
Q103 Mr Bacon: I was not asking whether
you were casting aspersions. I was asking what evidence there
was that they were unable to do the job, because you just said
the advice from the Metropolitan Police was it would be better
if it was done by them.
Dame Sue Street: I thought that
what was important was to understand what would be best overall
for the safety of the public, so we opened a discussion not on
the basis of evidence—
Q104 Mr Bacon: It was not an evidence
based discussion?
Dame Sue Street: It was in the
spirit of inquiry.
Q105 Mr Bacon: A spiritual discussion?
Dame Sue Street: Certainly not.
This is quite an important matter.
Q106 Mr Bacon: I know it is and I
speak with feeling because I used to work in The Royal Parks.
It was my first job after university. I did not bother to declare
it because it only lasted three weeks but I was an assistant gardener
in The Royal Parks. I went round the world instead, but it was
a very nice three weeks and there was a separate Royal Parks Constabulary.
Many of the gardeners were not contracted out and it seemed to
work perfectly okay. You have just said that the Metropolitan
Police gave you advice that they should merge. I take it you did
not take advice from The Royal Parks Constabulary as to whether
they should merge, or did you?
Dame Sue Street: This has been
agreed by all. I remember the bombs, as we all do, in The Royal
Parks in 1982. These are obviously extremely important risks in
this climate. What everybody wanted was to make sure that we are
able to keep people in parks absolutely safe and that the accountability
regimes the Metropolitan Police have in place apply to all.
Q107 Mr Bacon: I just heard the Chairman,
who runs through the park often in the mornings and swims in the
Serpentine with some other Members of Parliament each morning,
say soto voce that there are no police in the parks at
all. Certainly when I was in the parks you did see the police.
What assurance can you give us that this is not going to lead
to a further diminution in the amount of policing that goes on
protecting the public in parks?
Dame Sue Street: I am extremely
grateful to my colleague who has advised me that the police exceeded
their targets for high visibility policing by 140% in 2004-05.
Q108 Mr Bacon: Could you send us
a note about what the targets were?
Dame Sue Street: I will send you
all the information I have[3].
Q109 Mr Bacon: When I worked there, on
a Monday morning, the park was absolutely disgusting because it
was covered in litter. My first job was to pick the litter up.
I have not been in the park early on a Monday morning for some
years. Is it still the case that at seven o'clock on a Monday
morning the park is disgusting, or on a Sunday night?
Mr Camley: On a Monday morning
I come through Hyde Park and it is in very good condition.
Q110 Mr Bacon: Is that because you
now clean it up the night before?
Mr Camley: There are regimes for
clearing up, yes.
Q111 Mr Bacon: I always used to think
there should be swingeing fines for people who drop litter to
encourage people not to, but is there a problem with security
and terrorism that we simply cannot have enough bins?
Mr Camley: We could probably look
at where we could have more bins, although we try to keep them
away from the main areas of grassland and so on because they break
up the view of the park.
Q112 Mr Davidson: You have only been
appointed in the last six months or so?
Mr Camley: That is correct.
Q113 Mr Davidson: You were not the
deputy before?
Mr Camley: No.
Q114 Mr Davidson: You are not guilty
of anything that has previously happened. Is that fair?
Mr Camley: I was not there previously.
Q115 Mr Davidson: Am I right in thinking
that there are a number of steps that have now been instituted
which should result in the parks being woken up a bit and that
the programmes that are being introduced are likely to result
in the usage being much more socially inclusive?
Mr Camley: I hope so. My aim is
for the parks generally to be more focused but that is about learning
from others and bringing in other users.
Q116 Mr Davidson: If you produce
a report for us indicating usage and how it has improved, say,
for 12 months from now in terms of age, race and social class,
all of that would be positive, you think?
Mr Camley: Yes.
Q117 Mr Davidson: Could I therefore
ask that such a report is produced and that the figures are not
made up.
Mr Camley: Of course.[4]
Q118 Chairman: Most people who currently
use this park presumably want to go there for peace and tranquillity.
I read in paragraph 2.7 that you are targeting with a view to
attracting "disaffected young people". What planned
activities have you for them?
Mr Camley: Sue mentioned the work
we did with the Prince's Trust at Bushy Park, where people who
had few job prospects were invited for a week of working in the
park so that they could gain some experience.
Q119 Chairman: Like our friend, Mr
Bacon? A disaffected youth?
Mr Camley: He has gone on to greater
and better things since.
Q120 Chairman: He was more useful
when he was working in the park.
Mr Camley: That is one of the
ways in which we have tried to work with local communities, so
that we can help people who are more deprived.
Q121 Chairman: How many were injured
in the fountain in the first few weeks?
Dame Sue Street: There were 15
injuries in the first 16 days. Since the remedial works have been
completed, since last May, with over 600,000 visitors there have
been four accidents.
Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing
before us. On behalf of all of us who use the park, may I thank
you and your staff for the excellent job they do? If this was
a near fiasco, I am sure no blame attaches to you or your staff.
I suspect they were not adequately consulted. Thank you very much.nb
3 Details of targets are published within the Metropolitan
Police, Royal Parks Operational Command Unit Policing Plan,
and are available on the Metropolitan Police's website: www.met.police.uk Back
4
Note by witness: A report on the usage of the Parks will be published
in 12 months time. Back
| 
