On Monday four MPs and a Government Minister took part in a short debate on the theme of Police Officer numbers. The failure of the Government Minister to respond in a meaningful way to any of the questions shows how Parliament is such a waste of public resources. It is surely time for us to demand that when our MPs ask questions that the Government is held to account by a Speaker or some other official who acts as an advocate for us to have our questions answered. The debate began with two of the MPs involved asking a very simple question of the Home Secretary regarding the number of Police Officers. The two MPs who asked the initial question are Gill Furniss of Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough and Mohammed Yasin of Bedford. Their opening question went: “What recent assessment he has made of the effect of changes in the number of police officers on the level of serious crime.” The response from the Home Office came not from Sajid Javid but from one of the more Junior Home Office Ministers, Victoria Atkins who responded with the following statement: “In April we published our serious violence strategy, which sets out a range of factors driving increases in violent crime. Our analysis shows that changes in the drugs market are a major factor behind the recent increases in serious violence.” Now this is clearly a failure to answer the question the two MPs asked, however the nature of these debates is that the first pre written question is then followed by a supplementary question which allows the MPs to press the point a bit harder.

Gill Furniss went on to ask: “South Yorkshire police have seen their budget reduce by £66 million in real terms since 2010, and they expect more to come. In Sheffield, knife crime has increased by 41% over the past year. Does the Minister agree that reducing police numbers has a direct effect on this staggering upward trend in violent crime, which has led to many tragic deaths and left many families grieving?” 

VA responded: “I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She will know that the South Yorkshire constabulary is receiving an extra £5 million this year, and that the Government have protected police funding since 2015. Indeed, police constabularies across the country will see up to £460 million more in funding with the help of police and crime commissioners. Serious violence has to be tackled as part of a national strategy, which is exactly what we have set out.”

Mohammed Yasin then had his supplementary question: “Bedfordshire police are under unprecedented pressure: violent crime is up, they face the third largest terrorist threat in the country, and they have had to support the visit of President Trump and deal with an increase in mental health cases. Can the Secretary of State explain how the police can keep the people of Bedford safe when they do not have the resources to attend 999 calls? 

This question received a similar diversionary response from Victoria Atkins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would agree with me that the way in which Bedfordshire is kept safe is through the excellent work of its police officers and its Conservative police and crime commissioner, who has managed to increase officer numbers in her constabulary by 6.5% over the past year. It is deeply concerning that Victoria is happy to promote how Tory Police and Crime Commissioners work whilst ignoring the work of Labour or Independent Police and Crime Commissioners and also ignoring the more fundamental question about Policing numbers. Two other MPs then asked questions on the same subject and both received a response that equally ignored the question and the issue of policing numbers and how the shortage is impacting all communities across the UK.

Edward Davey: Has the Minister read the evidence produced by the Home Office for the serious violence strategy, which shows that it is highly likely that police cuts have contributed to the rise in violent crime? If she has not, will she publish it?  and the response was

VA: This rather demonstrates the difference between this Government and the right hon. Gentleman’s party. We are concerned with answering the question that the public ask us: how can we make our country safer? We have taken a cold, hard look at the rise in serious violence, and we have drawn together, from a range of parties, including the police, healthcare providers, schools and so on, the serious violence strategy, and it is through that strategy, with the help of those providers, that we will tackle this issue.

The final question came from Louise Haigh, the shadow Policing Minister: “Today the Daily Mail published the results of an exclusive survey, which showed that 57% of people say that police officers have surrendered control of our neighbourhoods and criminals have no fear of being caught; a quarter of people do not feel safe going out at night; and more than half of respondents who reported a crime did not have a police officer attend. Does the Minister accept any responsibility for those figures, or does the Home Office still labour under the dangerous delusion that its cuts have not affected community safety?”

VA: “I gently remind the hon. Lady that the Government have provided £460 million in additional funding for the police this year, which I understand she voted against. Again, we have to look at this as a strategy. The problem cannot be solved by police officers alone, vital though they are. Early intervention and tackling young people before they get dragged into criminality are key, and I hope that the Labour party will support the Offensive Weapons Bill, which gives the police the powers they need.”

It is clearly unacceptable for such an important issue to be treated in such a poor way by a Government that stated in its manifesto “We will help Britain’s world-leading police forces and prosecutorial services to fight crime, protect the public and provide security for businesses”. It is vital that they are made accountable on such a theme both in terms of delivering against the manifesto and also answering questions in a straightforward way! It is also important that the role of Police and Crime Commissioners are not laden with political tribalism.