I spent an enjoyable couple of hours today at the Barons Court Theatre (in the Curtains Up pub in Comeragh Road) watching a performance of “The Importance of Being Earnest” by Professional Help Productions.

Some of the biggest laughs were reserved, as ever, for Lady Bracknell (played by Sarah Dearlove standing in at short notice for Judith Pollard), but particularly for those lines during her interrogation of Jack Worthing, designed to assess his suitability as a potential husband for Gwendolen, which seemed particularly pertinent to 2011 (a mere 116 years after the play’s first performance):

“Lady Bracknell. I have always been of opinion that a man who desires to get married should know either everything or nothing. Which do you know?

Jack. [After some hesitation.] I know nothing, Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell. I am pleased to hear it. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to riots and acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.”

And then a few moments later:

“Lady Bracknell. [Sternly.] What are your polities?

Jack. Well, I am afraid I really have none. I am a Liberal.

Lady Bracknell. Oh, they count as Tories. ….  Now to minor matters. Are your parents living?”

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, today in a major speech sensibly made clear that the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner will be a British officer – following speculation that a US crimefighter, such as former New York police chief Bill Bratton could be considered for the role.  She said she had

“no time for the pessimism which says we cannot find from amongst our ranks a tough crime fighter, equipped to lead the Met”.

This was wise.  Police morale is hardly going to be improved by giving the message that the only person of sufficient calibre to lead the Metropolitan Police is an American.  In fact, when the closing date for applications passes tomorrow, a number of strong and impressive candidates are likely to have put themselves forward.

However, in her speech she also said that ministers are considering new curfew powers – to allow “general curfews” to be imposed on a specific area in England and Wales, rather than being linked to specific individuals, and to allow them to apply to youngsters aged under 16.  This is less convincing. 

Curfews are only meaningful, if they are enforced.  And they can only be enforced effectively if there are large numbers of police on the streets.  And, as we have seen in the last week, if there are large numbers of police on the streets, you are unlikely to have disorder and you won’t need a curfew.

It all comes back to police numbers and police budgets and that’s the area where the Government is on very weak ground.

The House of Lords sat today and the Leader of the House (Lord Strathclyde) repeated a statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on the riots over the last week.  The Prime Minister’s speech was carefully tailored with soundbites for the televison news, but it was notable for what it missed out or skated around.

The Prime Minister stressed how important it had been to flood London with extra police officers.  However, there was no mention of the fact that the Government is cutting the police budget by 20 per cent, that police numbers have already fallen by 4,600 since the General Election, and are set to fall even further (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary estimates that there will be over 16,200 fewer officers by 2015).  When in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde suggested that these cuts would “not affect the police’s ability to get policemen on the streets” he was greeted by a chorus of disbelief (or “Oh!” as Hansard puts it) on all sides.

The Prime Minister praised the role of CCTV in catching those responsible for the violence and looting.  However, he didn’t mention that as part of the Coalition agreement the Government was now putting large bureaucratic hurdles in the way of local councils installing CCTV to reduce crime.

The Prime Minister talked of a robust approach to tackling gang violence, but he failed to mention that in opposition the Conservatives had voted against measures to extend the powers to obtain injunctions to stem such gang-related violence and Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, who was then Shadow Home Secretary, had described the use of injunctions as a “legally dubious gimmick”.

The statement was light on substance and where what sounded like practical measures were mentioned they often seemed to mean very little in practice.  For example, the Prime Minister said that the Government would be supporting local communities affected and that ”the Bellwin scheme to support local authorities will be operational”.  This, of course, only means that local councils get some support from central government when additional – approved - spending for a specific cause exceeds two per cent of their annual expenditure.  This is a very high hurdle indeed – and even then the help only extends to the spending over the two per cent threshhold.

When I got my chance to ask a question, this is what I said:

“Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a former leader of Haringey Council, where I spent about 12 years of my life trying to secure the sustainable regeneration of the area of Tottenham. One of the tragedies of what has happened in the past few days is that the stigma of an area of riot has again fallen on that community, and that the efforts built up over many years are now being undermined, with businesses no longer being able to survive.

Do the Government believe that the Bellwin formula will be a sufficient response to ensure the reconstruction that will be needed? This will be of communities after the damage that has been done, and must also tackle underlying problems. Will they review the resources being made available to local government for regeneration in such areas? Will they also review the way in which the Riot (Damages) Act operates? If it would drain funds from police forces to compensate people who have been hit and damaged by the riots, that would be extremely damaging to the sustaining of police numbers in future. Finally, what advice was taken from the police service about the decision that water cannon should be made available on the mainland? It is used usually for the dispersal of large crowds, but the problem in this case was caused by small groups of people acting opportunistically.”

The point about the Riot (Damages) Act is important because it means that compensation to individuals or businesses adversely affected by a riot has to be paid from the police budget – so budgets already cut as a result of Government policy will be drained further to pay compensation.

And then there was the Prime Minister’s soundbite about water cannon.  Water cannon have been used in Northern Ireland – not without controversy – but their effectiveness is in dispersing large hostile crowds.  The problems that there have been with looters in London and other cities have been with small opportunistic groups.  They are already dispersed.  Water cannon would not help deal with such small fast-moving groups.

This – like the soundbite about authorising the use of plastic bullets or baton rounds – seems to be more about pandering to excitable back-bench Tory MPs rather than addressing the serious issues that affect our cities.

Am I surprised?

Well, no ….

Yesterday, I reported that, despite what the Prime Minister had said, Parliament was not being recalled – only the House of Commons.  Apparently, the Leader of the House of Lords had not seen the need for the Upper House to be recalled.

Overnight, there was a change of heart and this morning it was announced that the House of Lords would after all sit at noon tomorrow.

Was it something I said?

Earlier today the Prime Minister announced that Parliament was being recalled on Thursday to discuss the disturbances in London and elsewhere.

It turns out that this is not true. 

Only the House of Commons is being recalled.  Unusually, the House of Lords is not going to be sitting as well. 

Apparently, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, Leader of the House of Lords, was not keen ……

(more…)

I gather that the Total Politics Blog Awards are now in progress.  I want to make it quite clear that I will not be in the least bit affronted should you chose to vote for this blog by clicking here.

Theresa May is flying back from her holiday for urgent meetings to discuss the response to the London disturbances with senior police officers.
She understands that this is an important part of her role as Home Secretary.
(It of course demonstrates how much confidence she has in Mayor Boris Johnson to get it right in her absence and she must regret leaving Lynne Featherstone in charge of the Home Office for even ten minutes.)
What it also highlights is the decision of George Osborne and David Cameron to stay put on their expensive foreign trips while the world economy goes into meltdown.
She increasingly looks like the next Leader of the Conservative Party…..

I have previously reported my frustration with the answers I have received to Parliamentary Questions from the Home Office, saying that I had received:

“the sort of answer that gives non-answers a bad name.”

Pointing out that:

“A request under the Freedom of Information Act would, I am sure, have elicited a fuller answer”

and in a shorter time.

So I wrote to the Leader of the House of Lords to complain.

I have now received his reply, which says:

“I agree that the answers given to the examples you have supplied are not adequate and fall considerably short of providing you with the information you seek.  If that information is not available for whatever reason, I would expect the answer to reflect why that is the case.  These do not and that is not appropriate in response to a Peer.”

He has asked the Home Office to supply me with the information requested and also to respond more fully to future Parliamentary Questions and to respond within the ten working-day target.

We will see what happens ….

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM is in the Chair – the first meeting since Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner and John Yates as Assistant Commissioner.  The meeting is subdued and rather tense.

Tim Godwin, the Acting Commissioner (or that is what is name badge says, but apparently he is Temporary Commissioner which has a slightly different legal status), and Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Acting Deputy Commissioner (again this is what it says on his name badge, but apparently he has neither “Acting” or “Temporary” but is seconded into the Metropolitan Police from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to “fill the role”; he is the former Chief Constable of Merseyside) are present. Tim Godwin is choosing his words with care and Bernard Hogan-Howe, who has so far said nothing, is looking as though he wonders what he has got himself into.

The meeting started with twenty-two questions tabled by Jennette Arnold AM on issues surrounding the investigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan and the “intervention” in it of the News of the World.  The Acting Commissioner responded by saying that he was not able to answer any of these as they were all subject to other investigations.  I asked for some clarity on precisely which investigation covered which question and was promised that this would be circulated when it was clear.

The meeting then spent a happy half hour pursuing questions initially raised by Jenny Jones AM and Joanne McCartney AM aimed at establishing whether Mayor Boris Johnson had been briefed about continuing police investigations into phone hacking when he described the continuing concerns as “codswallop” and “a put up job by the Labour Party”.  In the end Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM had to explain that the “Mayor likes to express himself in a particular way” and, when asked (by me) whether the Mayor sticks to the briefings he receives, to say the “Mayor knows his own mind”.  I am not sure anyone was terribly reassured or satisfied.

And finally – nearly two hours into the meeting (and not before time) - the Authority moved on to more general policing issues, such as knife crime, murder, street crime etc.