Ed Balls welcomes fall in crime under Labour, but warns on 20% cuts to police

Responding to figures today showing a fall in crime of 4 per cent on the British Crime Survey and a fall in recorded crime of 8 per cent in the year ending June 2010, the Shadow Home Secretary Ed Balls said:

“These figures are a tribute to the work of our police and local services and show that Labour’s policies to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour were working.

“I hope the Home Secretary will now finally admit that crime fell substantially under Labour, helped by a record number of police officers, and that the risk of being a victim of crime is at a thirty year low.

“We need to keep crime coming down but I am very concerned about whether this progress can be sustained. By failing to protect funding for the police in the Spending Review, the Home Secretary is taking huge risks with the public’s safety, crime and national security.

“The government’s deep cuts of twenty per cent to policing could mean up to 20,000 fewer police officers, according to the Police Federation. And I’m particularly worried that specialist policing units, such as those to tackle organised crime, domestic violence or child abuse which the government no longer considers to be part of the frontline, could be the first to be cut.”

ENDS

Background

1. Quarterly crime figures published today can be found here: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1610.pdf

2. Annual figures from the British Crime Survey, published in July, showed that overall crime fell 43% compared to 1997.

3. The Police Federation has suggested 20,000 police officers would be lost by the end of the Spending Review period:

“Well that’s a really tough settlement. We’ve seen since 2004 we’ve reduced bureaucracy, we’ve made some efficiency savings of £1.5 billion but now we’re talking just in sheer terms of cash so we estimate £1.2 billion by the end of this period and that can only come now from staff. So we know forces have a recruitment freeze on officers, we churn about 5,000 officers a year so we’re probably talking losing, by the end of this time, 20,000 officers and that’s going to have a big impact. Let’s have no doubt about that, that’s going to have a big impact and that doesn’t include staff officers that we lose as well. So this is a tough tough day for policing.”

Simon Reed, Vice Chairman of the Police Federation, Sky News, 20 October 2010

4. KPMG has estimated that around 18,000 police officers could be lost

“The Chancellor’s headline of a four percent cut in police funding equates to a real cut of 20 percent in central government contribution. The extent of the cuts will be identified over the next few months. KPMG estimates that approximately 18,000 police officers could be cut over the next four years.”

‘What does the Spending Review mean for Home Affairs / Police?’, KPMG analysis, http://rd.kpmg.co.uk/Topics/23657.htm

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Twitter
Posted October 21st, 2010 by Ed's team

2 Responses to “Ed Balls welcomes fall in crime under Labour, but warns on 20% cuts to police”

  1. Mary nash says:

    Nice surprise, Ed. We did not know you were carrying on with this website. Your intelligent commentaries and helpful analysis keep us up to date. We desperately need a strong Opposition Party ASAP. Hopefully, Ed Milliband will wake up from hibernation soon. The country needs a credible alternative govt led by a Leader with vision and courage, before the high and mighty George Osborne carelessly gamble away the good work Labour Govt has bequeathed the Coalition govt.

  2. Lisa Ansell says:

    We know that Labour did many things right. We just can’t argue it because you won’t look at what you did wrong. We are left arguing about tiny issues, and defending ourselves against being told our moral defects are the cause of the crisis- we are left with no chance of opposition till Labour stops saying what they did right, and starts saying what they did wrong. And why it was wrong. Maybe then we could have a debate which would actually effectively oppose what is happening to us right now.

    Instead of ecoomic debate, serious economic debate: we have hearfhearted opposition and whipped up tribalism. And in two years the cuts will be the least of our worries- by then I am assuming the banks will have needed anotehr bail out-regardless of who is in power.

    http://lisaansell.posterous.com/

Leave a Reply