999 Services Staff 'Cuts' Criticised By Yvette Cooper

Police Cuts 999 Yvette Cooper

PA/The Huffington Post   First Posted: 11/03/2012 05:10 Updated: 11/03/2012 11:21

Labour has accused the coalition of overseeing a "shocking" 5,000 cut in police dealing with 999 emergencies.

Figures released under freedom of information laws suggest the number of "first responder" officers has dropped by 5,261 since the general election.

David Cameron has repeatedly insisted that frontline police have not been affected by cuts to budgets.

But shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who uncovered the latest details, said they showed that his claims were "bogus".

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary defines "first responders" as those responding to 999 calls, attending traffic accidents and being first at the scenes of crime and other incidents.

The forces that have apparently suffered the biggest culls include Devon and Cornwall, which had lost 540 "first responders" (25% of its total) between March 2010 and last December, and West Midlands, which lost 1,023 (19%).

The total figure is likely to be significantly higher, as only 23 of 43 forces have so far provided data.

Ms Cooper said: "This steep fall in the frontline teams who respond to 999 calls just goes to show how damaging it is for the Government to cut 16,000 police officers.

"We have consistently said the Government needs to change course and that frontline services are being hit by the 20% cut to police funding. The evidence is stacked against the Government and against their bogus claims about protecting frontline policing.

"Whether it is 'visible' or 'frontline' policing, however the Government want to phrase it, Theresa May and David Cameron's decision to cut 16,000 police officers is causing huge damage to police forces, and it is communities who will ultimately pay the price."

Police Minister Nick Herbert insisted the Government was protecting the frontline, insisting the debate was not all about the "raw numbers".

He accused Labour of "scaremongering", telling Sky News it was an "inconvenient truth" crime was falling despite reduced policy budgets.

Speaking to Dermot Murnaghan, he said: "I think it is shameful hypocrisy of Labour to be campaigning on this when they themselves would be reducing the number of officers.

"I really think it is appalling actually to suggest to people, and clearly Labour are scaremongering here, that somehow if you dial 999, you are not going to get the same response from police. Where is the evidence for that?"

He added: "What we are saying is that it is quite possible to reduce budgets, to look at again at how officers are deployed, to deal with the fact that there is this very large number in behind the scenes functions - that is actually too big a number - and make sure we are redeploying effectively and protecting the frontline service.

"My judgment is that is exactly what police forces are doing up and down the country. And we know that the proportion of the workforce on the frontline is actually increasing. We expect the visibility and availability of police officers, which is surely the key measure, to increase. We know that crime is continuing to come down."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Labour has accused the coalition of overseeing a "shocking" 5,000 cut in police dealing with 999 emergencies. Figures released under freedom of information laws suggest the number of "first respond...
Labour has accused the coalition of overseeing a "shocking" 5,000 cut in police dealing with 999 emergencies. Figures released under freedom of information laws suggest the number of "first respond...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:02 PM on 03/11/2012
Who cares what this Socialist twerp says. Apologise for being part of the crew that BANKRUPTED our country! If BROWN and the rest of you had managed the economy properly these lay-offs would hane not been necessary! So it is your fault along with Balls, Blair, Brown - oh look tree B's barstewards one and all!
07:02 PM on 03/11/2012
I am bored of hearing the word socialist used as an insult, I am bored of hearing how Brown (won international praise for his handling of banking crises like it or not he did, the Americans followed through his proposals are in a far better state than us) wrecked the economy, the seeds were sown a long time ago for it to happen
What I am concerned about is the worsening of the standard of living for the comman person in Britian, a deteriorating of public services and a stubborn determination to force through political ideology's regardless of public concern's.
10:51 PM on 03/11/2012
The truth is, that Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, they tried destroyed the UK economy. The mess of the economy they made. Yvette Cooper and her husband, they should be in jail. It is true, that Yvette Cooper is an ugly woman.
10:20 AM on 03/12/2012
The truth is the UK started to go down hill when Thatcher changed the economy it was her that started the deregulation of the banks, politics was shifted to the right, even Blair was a child of Thatcher.
What as wrecked the UK economy is unrestrained greed, the race to make more and more money, capitalism is not a bad thing but when left unchecked it acts like a black hole sucking in all wealth leaving little for the masses, eventully leaving the economy drained of cash. Services then suffer, demand drops and job cuts start. The bubble of Thatchers capitalism was always going to burst.
01:54 PM on 03/11/2012
Control room staff are highly trained, professional,competent operatives, at present. They are answerable in court, adhere to Data protection have signed the official secrets act, must reach Government targets in dealing with 999 calls within 8 seconds which is becoming increasingly difficult. Their working conditions have been radically changed, pay freeze, pensions under threat, fewer people having to multi task, and their jobs under threat of 'outsourcing' in the name of budget cuts. If control rooms are outsourced profit will be the main aim which will be achieved by further staff cuts and lower wages. What's the cost of public safety?
04:10 PM on 03/11/2012
Totally agree, I studied business and with that knowledge improved efficiencies and helped build three companies. I have seen the problems being caused by the cuts. Usually when you look to improving efficiencies in a business or area of business you would carry out a full impact assessment. This was not done. The government have pushed ahead on recommendations from their advisors when they have not looked at the matter in proper detail. Each Police Force is different and has a different demographic. Some Police Forces have lower council tax allocations and have offered value for money to their residents, some of these forces have also won awards for saving money and improving efficiencies before the Governments current cost cutting drive. These same Police forces now find themselves in a situation where they are asked to cut back office functions which were already cut before and still protect the front line. Where can these Police forces make the savings from now? The end result will be that there will be a disparity of service. People in one part of the country will receive a different service to that in another part of the country. That is not a damnation of the Police, the vast majority of which I have found to be tolerant, caring and dedicated. It is the result of treating Policing as a business but without carrying out the proper risk assessments, the results of which concern me greatly
10:53 PM on 03/11/2012
Thanks to Yvette Cooper, the benefits system got out of control. '’Thanks to Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, UK economy, is increasingly unfair not just for those at the bottom but for many of those in the middle as well." Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, the mess they have got us into.
12:55 PM on 03/11/2012
why do we need so many police - because we have so many criminals. Like politians!
12:23 PM on 03/11/2012
Policing is a total fail in the UK. I've called the police on the non emergency line only to get apathy and no shows in the US when I called the police for anything an officer would show up within 15 mins and there they don't let teens rule the streets they will lock them up, they also don't let car thieves out the same day of the crime. Why have all the CCTV when there aren't any balls to back it up?
03:10 PM on 03/11/2012
CCTV is not there to prevent crimes its there in case of civil unrest, try watching some cop shows, loads of footage of people being attacked, crims kicking shop windows in etc etc, no police show up, its me and you they're watching.
10:57 PM on 03/11/2012
What about a town that had good CCTV coverage that gave a certain amount of protection, detection, and public safety and is currently 'broken' ?. The town council nor Constabulary will 'fix' the situation due to budget cuts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stevesheff
10:03 AM on 03/11/2012
Tories seem to think that if they deny something vigorously enough, their statement will become 'true'.
10:26 AM on 03/11/2012
good comment, it won't and it doesn't.
photo
vividrick
I came, I saw...I had a cup of tea!
01:14 PM on 03/11/2012
I know, they seem to have a nasty habit of creating veneers and hope not many will notice.
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
10:00 AM on 03/11/2012
Has any actual research been done on this? Let's keep the figures simple. let's assume 1,000 front line police officers are required to police London. So the government cuts the budget meaning 200 officers are made redundant. Are the remaining 800 able to do the job? If so, why were 1,000 employed in the first place? If not by what right do the government play politics with the safety of the people, which is the prime purpose of the police. Let's see where someone has actually checked on any of this, before slashing the budgets.
10:40 AM on 03/11/2012
As usual, good common sense reasoning from you. The police can and will, at some time in the near future, I suspect, be prosecuted for failing to supply sufficient resources to confront disorder and respond to emergency calls from the public. It is to the public's credit that so few have applied for compensation and have the senior staff responsible for recruitment and deployment held to account for our personal safety and protection of our property. The crooks already knew that house breaking/burgling property and street robbery will mean they have plenty of time to flee the area once the police have been called. The trouble is we have non-police, staffing the emergency control rooms who don't have a clue what an urgent call and response entails. If anyone breaks into a house, particularly at night when most occupants are particularly vulnerable, the burglars cannot be surprised at the forceful reaction from occupiers, in defence of themselves and others in the household. The public have the right to defend themselves using whatever means/force they need to employ to protect themselves and others, they will not be prosecuted if that force was reasonable, to the point of killing the offender/s, in the circumstances.
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
11:58 AM on 03/11/2012
I fully agree that a householder should have the right to defend their property. The trouble being that when it gets to court, highly paid lawyers (bearing in mind that most of our government, regardless of party, are ex lawyers) will twist the definition of what constitutes reasonable force. We have seen in the past cases where burglars have successfully sued householders for being hurt. the reason they were hurt ie. Trying to steal from someone apparently being forgotten. I think you have the rights of it when you say sooner or later the police will be prosecuted. That it is not their fault because the government has slashed the budgets meaning the call centres are staffed with untrained peope, the standards at which people are accepted have been lowered, and there just are not enough to respond anyway will not be the concern of the government then. The chief constables will be at fault. All in the name of saving money. It would save money if you refused to buy a bandage when bleeding to death, which in too many areas, not only the police force, we are doing. The amount of money we are haemorrhaging into the EU, Foreign aid, and pointless unwinnable wars, and railway lines no one wants, would more than make cuts to our essential services unnecessary
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:52 PM on 03/11/2012
emillio11
The police are already liable for riot damages, but the problem is to claim it back you have to put in a claim with the local police authority. Very few people are getting much satisfaction with this as the process is dragging on and on. Mainly because all the thanks to government "reforms" most of police back room staff who deal with paperwork have been drasticly cut back as they were deemed "unnescessary" So there are few people there to cope with it. The government hasn't got a clue about policing and don't appreciate that just as it takes several more other specialists to keep an infantryman in the field it takes just as many other people to keep a front line policeman going. The fantasy world the government promote of bobbies aimlessly walking about looking for crimes is a joke, it is the worst value out for tax payers as on average they detect something like 2 crimes a year, thats why they mooved away from it.But the government always know best with their "Let's Pretend Britain".
04:49 PM on 03/11/2012
the same reason that they are killing the NHS !! its run by accountants,not by personal that know the situation from the front line,they look at the problem strictly from a financial point of view, not from a practical position,its the same with stopping the pensioners bus pass"s,those that have applied & got them only do so as they need them,not just for the fun of being able to say look what i have frauded out of the government this time,these pass"s are a life line to a lot of pensioners,which now they have lost,& if their bus fares are anything like the ones around here it costs £2.50 to get into town & back, (11 miles each way) & as most can only carry one carrier bag at a time could mean numerous trips for shopping,which they cannot afford to do !! but as usuall the government cannot give a damm !! as it in no way effects them
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
09:33 AM on 03/12/2012
Your last line says it mate. It in no way affects them. If and when it does, and only then will something be done about it. Cameron & co,do not need bus passes, nor do they actually need the NHS. Therefore it is as you say left to accountants. If you look only and purely at the money aspect of it, and you say, oh, there is an hourly bus service from village A to supermarket B, and only 3 or 4 people use it. It makes good economical sense to scrap it. What is not in the equation is as you rightly say, the lifeline for those 3 or 4 people. The chance to get out of the house and meet and talk to people. What now if the bus company decides that driver is now redundant? what of his or her misery? No it isn't only the money, but then as you said until they need it, and it isn't there, no problem. After all we are all in it together, are we not? The only difference between thee and me, (and the rest of the posters on here) and Mr. Cameron and his cabinet is that we are still working on our first million pounds, and they are not.