Is that a police car or a chauffeur-driven limo?

A "disgraceful perk" and "totally unjustified".

Ouch!

That was the conclusion from Lib Dem politician Dee Doocey, when she confronted Britain's top cop today on whether senior officers should have "chauffeur-driven limos".

I've just returned from the monthly Metropolitan Police Authority meeting.

Unusually, Ms Doocey used London's Conservative mayor as a shining example of best practice.

She said if he can give up his public-funded car and ride a bicycle around the capital, then why can't others.

Dee Doocey said:

"At a time of austerity and when really tough decisions are set to be made across public services, it is unbelievable that the Met are still planning to provide chauffeur-driven cars for senior police officers.

"The failure to abolish this disgraceful perk is shameful."

So what are the facts?

There are currently 44 ACPO rank officers (i.e. commander and above) in the Met who are entitled to a car, cash equivalent or first class travel.

The commissioner, deputy commissioner and assistant commissioners are given a car and driver. They can be driven from home to office.

Three other posts within counter-terrorism are provided with a car and a driver for security reasons.

If my maths is right, there are now 26 dedicated drivers ferrying these senior officers around but according to the Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, that is about to be cut to 19.

He defended the benefit, saying it was part of these officers "terms and conditions of contract."

He also said they were on call much of the time and there was considerable personal security risks for some of them.

Yet Dee Doocey disagreed:

"Removing all chauffeur-driven cars from all senior Met officers with the exception of cars required for security and operational purposes would save an estimated £2 million a year."

What do you think? Shameful perk or a necessary part of the job?