Member News
Less well off areas are going to be hit disproportionally by cuts to police funding, Labour MPs have argued.
Home secretary Theresa May said cuts in bureaucracy would help to protect front line police work and insisted that the effectiveness of a force "doesn't depend" primarily on staff numbers.
During Commons questions time, former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth asked about the likely effects on police numbers in the West Midlands of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
He noted that the West Midlands police force was intending to cut 400 police and support staff in the first year of the spending arrangements.
Ainsworth asked: "Why is low crime Surrey getting a far lower rate of cuts than the West Midlands. I thought we were all in this together?"
In response, May said the "effectiveness of a police force doesn't depend primarily on the numbers of staff".
She said what matters is "how effectively" they are deployed, and how visible and available they are doing the job the public want them to. And, she said "whether they have been freed from unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy".
The home secretary added: "The steps we are already taking to do away with the stop and account for, and to reduce the amount of information recorded on stop and search, will save 800,000 man hours every year."
May also pointed out that the question had not taken her by surprise, because Ainsworth had revealed what it was going to be on Twitter
In his first departmental questions in his new role, shadow home secretary Ed Balls noted the NHS budget was rising by 0.4 per cent in real terms four years, while defence and education budgets were only being reduced by 7.5 per cent and 11 per cent.
He asked if a real terms cuts in the Home Office department of 25 per cent, with the police losing 20 per cent, "constitutes a fair share".
The former education secretary said accountants KPMG had predicted 18,000 police officers would lose their jobs and the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, claimed that 20,000 posts could go.
He asked: "Do you agree with these estimates of deep cuts to frontline policing or do you think KPMG and the Police Federation in this matter have got their sums wrong?"
The home secretary said that it was "not just an issue about numbers but the jobs they are doing out there on the streets".
She said: "We are clear. Savings can be made without affecting frontline policing."
Former policing minister David Hanson said those poorer areas were likely to "bear disproportionately the brunt of any reductions in central government funding" as the Home Office provides the bulk of resources to those areas more so.
He added "That will mean fewer officers on the street, inexorably rises in crime. Is that fair?"
Policing minister Nick Herbert rejected the statement and said police forces could make significant savings, in line with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary's report
He told MPs: "The settlement that we've announced will enable them to protect the visible and available policing which is so important to the public."
Labour MP Jack Dromey (Birmingham Erdington) asked for confirmation that 2,000 police officers would be cut in the West Midlands and suggested that this would encourage a rise in crime.
Responding, the May asserted that the fight against crime is not "simply a matter of the number of police officers".
She added: "It's about how effectively those police officers are deployed and what they are doing.
"And what we are doing as a government to release police officers from the bureaucracy imposed by the last Labour government will make them freer and more available to be out there doing the job the public wants, on the streets."
In other exchanges, Liberal Democrat MP Lorely Burt raised concerns that the government's immigration cap will place pressure on British businesses.
The Solihull MP warned that extending the cap to inter-company transfers would put global firms off from investing in British businesses.
Burt said: "These inter-company transfers mean more jobs for British workers and they don't stay in the UK."
She called on immigration minister Damian Green to "look at the rules" as otherwise the country runs the risk of saying: "Yes, we're open for business but you can't come in."
In response Green said under the interim cap currently being operatied, inter-company transfers "are not covered - they're outside the cap".
He added: "Obviously for the permanent cap that will come in next April, we're looking at the best way to enable businesses to operate successfully in the future."
Julian Smith (Con, Skipton and Ripon) said the immigration cap needed to reflect the "needs of businesses to recruit highly-skilled migrants".
In response, the home secretary said: "We will, as we look at how we introduce the immigration cap, be taking on board comments that have been made by business in their requirements in relation to the way that the system operates."
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.