Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
280-292)
SIR IAN
BLAIR
8 DECEMBER 2009
Q280 Mr Streeter: Sir Ian, I want
to ask you a couple of questions on funding in a second but may
I first take you back to the point you made about the Metropolitan
Police having responsibility for counter-terrorism outside London
and the area of primacy law. I represent part of Plymouth and
we have some very sensitive assets—Plymouth dockyard, the
naval base and so on. If, God forbid, there were a terrorist incident
at the moment the Metropolitan Police is four hours away so who
in practice would be in charge of the initial response?
Sir Ian Blair: What happens is
that the local police force would—and of course you have
then got the Ministry of Defence police fitting into that as well.
If we take the concept of a geographically distant force exactly
the same would happen as happened in Glasgow, that the local force,
the Strathclyde force, takes command but within minutes the phone
call is into the counter-terrorism command in Scotland Yard and
within half an hour a group of Scotland Yard detectives are on
their way to Glasgow or to Portsmouth because they have the information
and the contacts about whether this is a one-off or this is connected
to a series of events. In Glasgow it was very quickly apparent
that that was connected to Haymarket, so it was one crime.
Q281 Mr Streeter: The situation is
fine you think, but it could be improved by making it clear in
law that the Metropolitan Police have the ownership.
Sir Ian Blair: Yes. There is a
very convoluted way of establishing that under one of the police
acts, the Home Secretary can require a Chief Constable to give
assistance to any other Chief Constable. I do not think that is
the right way to do it.
Q282 Mr Streeter: On funding, there
has been a 30% increase in counter-terrorism budgets since 2005;
do you think that money has been spent wisely?
Sir Ian Blair: As far as I know,
yes. It has mostly been spent on people, which is very important.
The hubs seem to me to be a great success. There was a problem
as to how the funding was allocated in that it was actually allocated
to ACPO itself and ACPO itself is not a body that can deal with
that kind of funding in terms of auditing, but that has been changed
so that it now goes to the Metropolitan Police Authority acting
on behalf of the Association of Police Authorities, so yes.
Q283 Mr Streeter: Who actually then
provides oversight of that spending?
Sir Ian Blair: There is—or
there was in my time—a committee of the Association of Police
Authorities and the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority
in those days chaired that and then reported to the Home Secretary.
Q284 Chairman: Sir Ian, your book
of course deals with a number of other issues and you mentioned
today the de Menezes case; do you think there is now closure on
that issue and that there is nothing further that can be done
in respect of compensating the family or dealing with any of the
implications of what happened to this particular gentleman?
Sir Ian Blair: I would have to
go back to my original statement that issues about what is currently
happening in terms of compensation or anything else is not a matter
for me.
Q285 Chairman: What about the statements
of Sir Hugh Orde because you were on BBC Breakfast last
week when you were talking about the policing controversy, that
there is a feeling that policing has become even more politicised
and Sir Hugh of course has particularly talked about the idea
of the election of police chiefs. You had some views to express
about that; can you help the Committee because we are also looking
at that?
Sir Ian Blair: I certainly can,
Chairman, but I do want to make clear that this is not a political
statement by me. I actually believe that the concept of a single
elected person on a large public mandate to deal with policing
is historically ignorant and ill thought out because it completely
destabilises the balance of power that has been established over
150 years. In terms of the concept of operational independence
of the police it becomes really very difficult to imagine how
that can be sustained where you have got a one-on-one relationship.
I am very proud of the Metropolitan Police and one of the things
that I am very proud of is that we were able to investigate cash
for honours. It would be not a comfortable feeling were there
a single relationship between the Commissioner and somebody or
the Chief Constable of so-and-so and somebody with a power of
hire and fire with no particular reason.
Q286 Chairman: Some would argue that
the Met is actually too big and structurally it should really
be a number of forces. Do you think that it has probably reached
saturation point?
Sir Ian Blair: The Met is too
big but it has got a reason for being too big, Chairman, which
is because London is too big, and the idea of splitting it up
North and South or East and West is a recipe for confusion and
I would not agree with it at all.
Q287 Tom Brake: Could you elaborate
further on what you think might be the operational implications
for the police in having a single person elected?
Sir Ian Blair: The concept has
been that the chief officer of police is operationally independent,
is not independent of explanation, is not independent of reasonableness
but if you are in a position in which the phrase hire and fire
is just used as some kind of shorthand, that a police chief can
be dismissed in effect at a whim, then you are going to replace
independence with acquiescence over a period of years. It is as
a simple as that. You cannot be absolutely independent if one
person can just fire you at will.
Q288 Tom Brake: Do you support the
view that has been expressed that this might be a resignation
matter for some senior police officers?
Sir Ian Blair: I think that it
is a bit unfair for the person who has crossed over to the other
side of the fence to start calling for resignations of people
with mortgages! However, I do think it is a very serious constitutional
issue: so serious that, as you may be aware in my book, along
with some other things, I actually believe the Police Service
has reached the moment when a further Royal Commission is required.
There is not only this; it is the structure of policing which
you have already talked about, in terms of the number of forces,
the different agencies and, my particular issue, it is the cost
of policing and the way in which the workforce is currently constituted.
All of those are issues which politicians, for various reasons,
would find it very difficult to deal with on a single party line—because
the other parties would attack.
Q289 Mr Winnick: Sir Ian, anyone
who wanted to see the Met carry out their duties at all levels
without prejudice would say that you started off and continued,
in all fairness, along the lines to make that a reality. That
is highly commendable, but do you feel on reflection that you
made a number of statements over the time you were Commissioner—not
one or two but a number—that simply gave ammunition to your
critics, who perhaps did not quite want the kind of Met that you
wanted?
Sir Ian Blair: I am sure that,
in your no doubt careful reading of my book, Mr Winnick, you will
note that I do say that, yes, I did make some mistakes. I also
say that whoever does not make mistakes does not make anything.
I was also the first Commissioner to operate in a global, 24-hour
news media. We were also dealing with the biggest story in the
world at the time. That does create pressures, and I did not get
everything right—no.
Q290 Mr Winnick: When the Mayor of
London indicated that he did not want you to continue, presumably
that did not come as a particular surprise?
Sir Ian Blair: Yes, it actually
did come as a major surprise. It came as a major surprise because
I believe that constitutionally what he was doing was just wrong.
It was inappropriate for a senior police officer to be placed
in the position that resignation was almost inevitable, without
an explanation being provided.
Q291 Mr Winnick: Did you point that
out to him?
Sir Ian Blair: I pointed out a
number of things to him, which are recorded in my book very carefully.
You did say was it a surprise. If it is a surprise, you do not
always remember what you should say; therefore you do not always
work out what you should say in that particular moment. However,
my view remains the same: that it was an inappropriate thing to
do.
Q292 Mr Winnick: Did you consider
standing your ground and saying that you were not willing to accept?
Sir Ian Blair: Mr Winnick, I very
much did but, as I said in my resignation statement, that would
have placed the Metropolitan Police in a very hostile position
with its authority. I was the steward of the office to which I
was appointed and, if it was necessary to protect the organisation
for the steward to step aside, then that is what I would do.
Chairman: Thank you very much for that
and thank you for allowing us to move on. Incidentally, this Committee
has recommended in our report Policing in the 21st Century
the creation of a Royal Commission to look at the very issues
that you have mentioned in your book. Thank you for coming to
give evidence to us.
| 
