---

Policing (City of London)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg, if not for the first time then certainly for only the second. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate and on the measured, concise and powerful way in which he put his case. I know that he has a reputation in the House for being reasonable. Sometimes reasonableness is a byword for someone being regarded as soft and not pursuing their case with vigour, but that is certainly not true of him. He demonstrates that somebody can put their case forcefully but reasonably, and I congratulate him on that. He makes his case even more powerfully in that way. I know that he is an assiduous Member of Parliament for his constituents, whether they be residents or businesses, and this debate is an example of that. In case I forget, I shall say now that of course I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleague. If he contacts my office we will arrange such a meeting, although I am not sure when, to discuss further the issues that have been raised this afternoon. We have required all crime and disorder reduction partnerships to draw up alcohol harm reduction strategies. The safer city partnership has consulted partner agencies and the wider public to target problems that it has identified using an analysis of partners’ data and a problem-solving approach. The Government have not only legislated to help CDRPs and law enforcement agencies but committed resources to both prevention and education. The harm that binge drinking does is well documented. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the second phase of our campaign to tackle binge drinking, ““Know Your Limits””, which I launched last week, is aimed at reinforcing that message. According to the police recorded crime statistics at 31 May 2008, all crime is down in the City of London by 6 per cent. compared with the same period last year. I am aware, however, that there have been some problems related to the night-time economy in the area, but I am reassured that the CDRP is working hard to tackle those issues, as the hon. Gentleman said. The priorities of the recent alcohol harm reduction strategy reflect the concern and commitment to tackle the problems. May I pause for a moment and, like the hon. Gentleman, pay tribute to all the hard work that is done by the City of London police, various local authority staff and all the agencies working to deal with problems in the City of London? Indeed, as he said, as well as dealing with problems from the night-time economy, the City of London police have been made the lead force for tackling fraud, and they are to be commended for all the work that they do on that. I recently met the chief constable to talk about economic crime in the broadest sense and some of the work that is being done on e-crime. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the City of London police deal with that but are also involved in many other areas of work. The night-time economy is not only about pubs and clubs. Other businesses and support infrastructures have a critical part to play as well. The night-time economy in the City of London has changed a great deal in the past 18 months, and while the Government have facilitated responsible drinking and leisure activities enjoyed by the majority of law-abiding citizens, they and local agencies are resolute in their determination to deal with those who overindulge or commit offences. The City of London operates a taxi marshals scheme from Liverpool Street station. It is vital in ensuring that people socialising in the City can disperse safely and get home quickly. Another example is the work being done by the London Ambulance Service, which ran a field hospital, or temporary treatment centre, based at Liverpool Street station in December 2007. It successfully dealt with those who were drunk or injured through assaults or accidents, and it relieved the pressure on the London Ambulance Service and left it better able to respond to other emergency calls. We understand that there have been problems with drunks urinating in the street. Clearly, that is unacceptable behaviour. In addition to issuing penalty notices for disorder, the Government urge local authorities to provide appropriate public toilet facilities. We understand that the local authority is trialling temporary urinals around Smithfield market and is set to introduce a new byelaw making it an offence to urinate in a public place. Also, businesses, working with the CDRP, should ensure that they have appropriate dispersal plans in place to address that apparent problem. The key to successful policing and management of the night-time economy is working in partnership to ensure that the police, the licensing authority, businesses and the health service all share information and work in a co-ordinated way to tackle any problems that are identified by the agencies or the public. We have recently introduced alcohol disorder zones which provide local authorities and the police with a means of charging licence holders for additional costs of enforcing the law if other measures to tackle alcohol-related crime have failed. Without going too much into the budgetary questions that the hon. Gentleman raised—as he said, he is pursuing them in other ways—there have been increases in the funding made available to the City of London police. The total budget for 2007-08 was £62.86 million, an increase of 2.7 per cent. over the equivalent budget for 2006-07. The total budget for 2008-09 is £64.12 million. It reflects the unique funding arrangements for the City of London police. There have been years in the past when they have done better than many other forces. The City of London Corporation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, wants to maintain the special status of the City of London police, but that brings with it a requirement to ensure that the force is properly funded. The hon. Gentleman knows that the problem comes from the fact that the corporation is treated like an education authority for the purpose of funding floors. This time around, the floor for education authorities is 2 per cent., which is less than the police funding floor. In previous years, the funding floor for education has been higher for education authorities than for the police. In those circumstances, they benefit. Having said that, it is clearly an issue, and I know that he is discussing it with others to see what can be done.