News analysis: Ken's beat police gamble

11:04am Tuesday 6th April 2004

Comments (0)   Have your say »

Question: How do you pay for 4,000 police officers? Whoever becomes mayor at the next election, this question is likely to ruin their sleep.

That's because the Met puts the cost of its new neighbourhood policing scheme (called "Step Change") at £341 million for the whole of London - almost 15 per cent of the total annual Met budget.

In a city where poverty keeps many in deprived estates, and congestion - or the congestion charge - prevent many from driving in the relative safety of their cars, the fear of being mugged, stabbed, raped or murdered can be a powerful factor in driving away businesses, tourists and residents.

Although crime on the Underground and the streets has been beaten back by resurgent police numbers in the last two years (Met officers have gone from around 25,000 in 2000 to 30,000 at the start of this year), the fear of crime is scarcely diminished.

It is this fear the Step Change programme aims to tackle.

But tackling it is expensive, and represents a huge gamble for the mayor - because no one can quite give solid details of where the money will come from.

The mayor has talked about funding it from the new "prudential" borrowing allowance Gordon Brown granted him two months ago.

He has also said he will consider financing the East London Line extension (£800 million) from the same, limited, pot.

His press office says he will "be looking for additional financial support from central governent for this" - but his new friends in Whitehall haven't said yes yet.

Met Police Authority (MPA) chair, Toby Harris (a Labour peer), claims he has discussed the money issue with the Home Secretary, who seemed "positive" - but there have been no announcements.

The Tories rant and scream at Mr Livingstone at every possible opportunity that London taxpayers will end up footing the bill - leading to further rises in Council Tax bills, they say.

Well, why shouldn't Londoners fund it? They'll be getting the benefit of the scheme.

In this year's pilot scheme (costing £26.6 million) 96 teams - each of six uniformed officers - have been allocated ward-by-ward: three teams for each borough in London.

They are targeted at some of London's most deprived and dangerous wards, including Lambeth's Coldharbour, Dalston in Hackney, and New Cross in Lewisham.

Over the next three years the Met plans to put the same number of dedicated officers in every ward in London, which is why the scheme is so expensive.

Yes, London should benefit from the scheme - but the rest of the country will as well.

The Met polices national terrorist threats and demonstrations at Westminster, provides protection to the Royal Family, the PM, his Government and visiting dignitaries, and develops intelligence on organised criminals, like drug traffickers, whose effects are felt across the UK.

Step Change provides a means of ensuring that when President Bush jets in to see his friend Tony, there are still police around to plod the beat in Newham, Croydon and Harrow - meaning neither London nor the national interest should lose out when there's something with a higher profile demanding, quite rightly, the Met's attention.

And London is a global city: the economic well-being of Britain's financial centre, and therefore of the UK itself, depends on the safety of its streets.

As Ken Livingstone said at a recent press conference: London's loss is no one's gain.

The case for making the Government pay for Step Change is strong. But what if it is not strong enough to open up the Treasury coffers? What if Londoners do end up paying?

Then the mayor, whoever it may be, would be forced to raise the money himself, either through tax hikes or borrowing. Either way, Londoners pay in the end.

That may not be all bad news though. Each year in the mayor's survey of Londoners' opinion, those polled have said they would be prepared to pay for more beat police.

It is this opinion the mayor may have to put to the test.

Beyond funding there are two key questions as yet unanswered: in any given ward, will six new, dedicated officers be enough to change the cultures of crime built up over decades of under-investment in the Met?

And, perhaps more importantly to elected politicians, even if they can make a difference to crime levels, can the Step Change units really reduce people's fear of crime, the feeling many Londoners carry: that they may be attacked at any moment?

Livingstone will be hoping the answer to both questions is yes.

If he's wrong on either count it could spell the end for his mayoralty (if he wins the June election), and even his political career, as Londoners use the ballot box to lash out at huge tax rises and the largest failed police initiative Britain has ever seen.

But if he's right, London will be back at the low, low crime levels of the 1950s and the capital will undoubtedly feel it is on the verge of a new era of security and prosperity.