I must have control of the Met

Today I will meet 1,000 new recruits at the Metropolitan Police Training Centre at Hendon, who will shortly be on the streets of London protecting the public. I have never agreed with the idea that police on the streets don't deter crime. Hendon is now more full than ever, and last year the Met's growth outstripped every other police force in the country.

This is good news - but until Government grasps the nettle and allows London's directly elected Mayor real responsibility for policing, the fight against crime in this city will be a long, hard and complicated battle.

The Met's dependence on grants from central government makes long-term planning impossible. Since 11 September many police officers have been taken off normal duties and switched to antiterrorism work in central London, resulting in a surge in street crime.

Let's be clear: national policing costs, including the security of the nation, must be met by the nation, not just by Londoners. Londoners alone shouldn't pick up the tab for national security, either through their pockets or through the level of policing they receive.

Tackling crime and the fear of crime in London is one of my key priorities, although my powers on policing are limited to setting the Met's budget. That Hendon is now at capacity is largely thanks to my first budget, which paid for an increase of 1,050 frontline police officers this time last year. This year my budget proposes to again give the Met 1,000 additional police officers.

If we are to make the best use of our officers, the Met's 170-year-old bureaucracy needs a complete overhaul. A thorough survey of the Met's finances has been commissioned to identify waste and divert this spending into frontline policing. But for the Mayor and Police Commissioner to tackle inefficiency without the power to appoint senior police staff will take years, not months.

Under difficult circumstances, every additional resource is being channelled into visible policing. As Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley and I saw when we joined police on an antitaxi touting swoop two weeks ago, this does not always have to mean traditional foot patrols. During this operation five arrests were made; four for touting and one on a more serious assault charge.

Central to my approach is getting much higher visibility of those, including the police, who protect and reassure the public. Bob Kiley, Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens and myself have worked closely to pull together a brand new Transport Policing Initiative involving 240 dedicated police officers.

Starting later this year, this scheme will do two things Londoners have demanded: it will fight crime by putting police officers on buses and cracking down on illegal taxi touts; and it will get the traffic moving by enforcing bus lanes.

Visibility here is key. It's not just the police who can combat the sense of lawlessness in many of our public spaces. In Trafalgar Square, I have brought in heritage wardens to look after the square - but they have also halved the crime rate. Likewise, everyone who uses a Routemaster bus will tell you that conductors make them feel safer.

Tackling apparently minor offences can be an effective way of letting the public know that the police, not the criminals, are in control. But a police force that doesn't come from the people it's protecting cannot do its job efficiently, which is why the Met is keen to recruit more police from London's visible ethnic minorities. Early indications suggest this is finally happening.

All of these measures are geared to making London safer - but New York's mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, achieved a 60 per cent reduction in the most serious crimes in just 10 years. So why can't we do the same for London?

The simple fact is that the mayor of New York is responsible to the voters for policing. The mayor sets the budget and recruits police accordingly. The mayor and police commissioner monitor the levels of crime in each precinct on a weekly basis and act quickly to snuff out surges in crime before they take hold.

The contrast with London could not be more extreme. Here, the Home Secretary, the Mayor, the London Assembly and the Metropolitan Police Authority all have their say on policing. As a result, no one person is indisputably accountable or responsible.

Take the police budget. The amount proposed by the Mayor can be changed by the London Assembly; the MPA can move the cash around; and the Police Commissioner can ignore all of these deliberations and spend the money how he likes. And everyone has to wait with bated breath to hear the size of the government grant. Fortunately, a good working relationship has developed between Toby Harris, the chair of the MPA, Sir John Stevens and myself.

Transforming policing in London needs a clear and accountable chain of command. I would never be so arrogant as to tell Sir John that I know best about policing but, as in New York, London's Mayor ought to be able to set the operational priorities of how the policing budget is spent.

As we have seen on transport, where the Mayor has real powers over buses, those improvements demanded by the public are now being achieved. Fares have been cut in real terms, new buses are being introduced, and ridership is up.

Clear accountability is the key - we need the same for the police. The £2 million Metropolitan Police Authority bureaucracy should be abolished, with the directly elected London Assembly taking on the role of scrutiny of the police.

With the advice of a small committee of specialists and community and business representatives, the Mayor should take over the power to appoint the Police Commissioner and all senior officers, set the budget and decide clear and specific targets for crime reduction.

But in the meantime, I don't blame Londoners for wondering sometimes just who is accountable.