Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest she takes in Warren Hill. I have followed up the discussions that we have had and I assure her in relation to gang violence that there is no absolute, rigid rule that proximity should take precedence. When placing young people and adults into custodial establishments, both the YJB and NOMS take proper account of all the factors required and there is emerging good practice around identifying gang affiliations.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows from the evidence that has been received about the recent riots in London and other cities, a number of people involved in gangs were part of those riots. Will he ask his Department to deal with organisations such as User Voice, which consists of ex-offenders who were in gangs, which are willing to work with the Ministry of Justice and assist it in its projects?

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman has made an excellent suggestion, which I am very happy to pass on to officials in the Department.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, he would know that I was talking about the popularity of the reform that his Government introduced —the introduction of the Mayor of London. Evidence from opinion polls shows that a large majority of the public welcome the idea of enhanced local accountability for policing.

The public have not had a voice. As the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), has pointed out:

“Under the current system, 93 per cent of the country has no direct, elected representation.”

Indeed, only 7% of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority, so it is no surprise that only 7% of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they are dissatisfied with policing. Most people have no clue who their police authority chair is. How can a body be an effective link between the police and the people if it is invisible to the people? I agree with the former policing Minister, who said that people must “know who to go to” and be

“able to influence their policing through the ballot box.”

That was the hon. Member for Gedling.

Some say that this visibility does not matter and, provided that a wise committee takes the right decisions, there is no need to refer to the people. That is the argument that favours rule by quangos over democratic decision making. The defenders of the current system of governance say that it works well, but I am afraid that I disagree. Only four of the 22 inspected police authorities were assessed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission as performing well in their most critical functions. I understand why police authorities oppose their own abolition, but there are few who believe that the authorities can remain in their current form. Even the Opposition do not share that view.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box after his recent illness. We have missed him. There have been riots and both the commissioner and the head of counter-terrorism have resigned, so the Minister’s re-emergence provides great stability for all of us who are interested in policing issues. I agree with him about the invisibility of police authorities. The Home Affairs Committee considered this matter in the last Parliament when the Government wanted to introduce an element of election. What concerns me is the progress on the protocol, which the Committee believed was extremely important in defining the relationship between the chief constable and the new police and crime commissioner. If he does not plan to refer to this later in his speech, will he tell us now what is happening about the protocol?

[Nick Herbert]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that we get the protocol right. We have made very good progress with it, and I will deal directly with those remarks, if I may, later in my speech. I also thank him for his kind words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I am just going to make a little more progress. Let me deal with costs, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The shadow Home Secretary says that the reform will cost “well over £100 million”. No, it will not. She reaches that figure by counting in the running costs of police authorities—money that, apparently, should not be spent. So, this is Labour's latest policy: not just no elections for those who hold the police to account, but no one to hold them to account at all—because, apparently, police authorities would go as well.

The only additional cost of the Government’s reforms is the cost of elections. That will normally be £50 million every four years, £12.5 million a year on average, or 0.1% of what is spent on police forces.

[Keith Vaz]

The argument over the figure of £100 million will go on, but it is now accepted that the postponed election will cost £25 million, and that equates to 2,000 extra police officers.

[Nick Herbert]

No.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but the fact that the postponed election will cost £25 million is not in dispute, is it?

[Nick Herbert]

I will come to that immediately. There will be a one-off additional cost for holding the elections in November next year, rather than in May, and the cost will indeed increase: it will increase from 0.1% of police spend to 0.15%, and then it will go back down to 0.1% again. So, this is apparently the full weight of the Opposition’s argument: a delay in holding an election will temporarily cost 0.05% of police spend. That is a risible case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to move on.

I want to come back to the issue of London’s Mayor, which was much discussed in the other place, as it has been here. I want to credit the Opposition for the creation of the office of Mayor, which, as I have said before, has been a popular reform. As we debate these issues, the Mayor has been playing a key role in the decision over who will next lead the Metropolitan police. He has given Londoners an important voice in policing. How many Londoners would prefer their police force to answer to an invisible committee? Now the Opposition are criticising the Mayor’s role in policing—well, they invented it. Of course the Opposition do not like the current Mayor. They may not like what he does, but that is not a reason to dislike the office or to object to the same principle of greater democratic accountability being introduced in the rest of the country.

Let us be clear: the Mayor does not run the police in London; he holds them to account, and that is the principle that we are advancing. The British model of impartial policing must be retained, and it will be retained. Our aim is not to abandon the tripartite arrangement of police governance between the Home Office, local representatives and forces, but to rebalance it.

[Keith Vaz]

The name of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been announced as the Minister has been speaking from the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House who it is. I will leave it to him to make the announcement rather than me. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, no, no. I do not want to spoil the fun. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister does not know, but it has just been announced. Will he assure the House that it was done with the full agreement of the Mayor of London, that there was no dispute, and that we will all now be able to unite behind the new commissioner, whose name, I think, is winging its way over to him as I speak?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to make an announcement before it is confirmed to me that the name has been formally announced.

To prevent too much power from being vested in a single individual, we are putting in place strict checks and balances. This is an important part of the argument. The checks and balances include local police and crime panels with representatives from each local authority and independent members, which will have the power to scrutinise the commissioner’s actions. District councils will have a stake in police governance for the first time. They do not currently have that position in police authorities. The panels will have teeth. They will have the power of veto over excessive precepts and the appointment of chief constables, and they will have the weapon of transparency.

We have listened to concerns and have strengthened the safeguards in the other place. I will go into the detail of those changes when we discuss them later. However, I want to highlight three important areas where we have listened, not least to the professional advice of senior police officers, and acted. First, in response to the point made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee on the operational independence of the police, it is fundamental to the British system that the police remain operationally independent. No politician can tell a constable—a sworn officer of the Crown—who to arrest. Forces will continue to be under the legal direction and control of their chief constable. There is no change in those legal arrangements.

Since the Bill left this House, the Government have published a draft protocol that clearly sets out the roles of the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, and how they and the other actors, including the police and crime panel, will interact. We did that partly in response to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. Senior chief constables, including senior leaders of the Metropolitan police, welcomed the publication of the draft protocol. They have said that it provides clear direction on the future roles of chief constables, police and crime commissioners and the Home Secretary, and that it ensures the balance between operational independence and appropriate public accountability. I agree with chief constables that we must include in the protocol the fact that the police and crime commissioner must set the strategic direction and objectives of the force and decide the budget of the force, while being clear that chief constables remain operationally independent.

We also amended the Bill in the other place to make it a statutory requirement for the Home Secretary to issue the protocol. This work is not over. We will continue to work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to ensure that the protocol covers all the necessary issues in the necessary depth. It is vital that we get this right. We have made tangible progress in ensuring that the operational independence of police officers will be protected under this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is absolutely right. The teamwork, collaboration and partnership working was, I think, one of the consequences of a Bill that my right hon. Friend took through in 1998. I believe that was one of the most successful reforms carried out under the last Government.

Let me deal with a fundamental issue that will be dealt with more fully in the next group of amendments. It is important, so I shall refer to it now, as it is one of the crucial issues on which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase might want to reflect further. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, one thing he could not do was sack chief constables in individual areas. Under the Bill, however, the police and crime commissioner will be able to sack the chief constable, without the police and crime panel having any power to control it. That is an important difference; in my view, it is a big flaw in the Bill.

[Keith Vaz]

Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that although, apparently, the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has had a photo call with the Home Secretary—before she came into the Chamber—and the policing Minister has been at the Dispatch Box, there still has not been an announcement to Parliament of the new appointment. Everyone knows that it is Mr Hogan-Howe, but apparently the House of Commons does not know. Has my hon. Friend been told the name of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

[Vernon Coaker]

I have been told now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

Even in Bury St Edmunds, I dare say. Let me repeat the other statistic, because it is quite shocking. Fewer than one in eight uniformed officers are available to respond to the public visibly. That includes not only response units going around the streets but also those handling such calls—the visible availability. There must be a better way of asking any chief constable searching questions about why that is happening on their patch or police force area.

I conclude by saying that police authorities have had many years to ask some of those difficult questions, but those two statistics, shocking as they are, represented the situation in July 2011. The police authorities have had their fair crack but they have not been able to squeeze the efficiencies and to ask the difficult questions that they should have. It is time for them to move over and for the police and crime commissioners to have a crack and see whether they can do better. It is in that spirit of cheerful optimism that I support the amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

[Keith Vaz]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who is very knowledgeable about these matters. I shall speak only briefly and I begin by apologising because I have to be away before the end of the debate because the chairman of the committee on homeland security from the United States Congress is coming to meet members of the Select Committee to discuss counter-terrorism.

I want to speak very briefly on these matters and I do not want to repeat the debate we have had before about the principle of police commissioners. However, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said about this being an attempt by the Government to reposition police and crime commissioners at the heart of the Bill. I know that all Members have heard the arguments before and, as we have just heard, opinions are deeply held on both sides of the House.

I shall concentrate on three issues. First, I was disappointed that the announcement of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner was not made to the House. It has become a feature to announce resignations to the House and I think that such important appointments ought to be announced here first rather than to the BBC and Sky News. However, I am glad that the Home Secretary heard the mood of the House and rushed in here to make her announcement by intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I join the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend in congratulating Bernard Hogan-Howe on his appointment; I know that he comes with enormous experience. He was the only candidate for the position of chief executive of the new National Crime Agency, but he was plucked from that job and made the acting deputy commissioner, and now hehas the top job. It is a very demanding job and I wish him well.

Let me make two quick points about the Bill. As I said in my intervention, I welcome the Minister back, and I think he has done excellent work on the protocol, which is an example of what can happen when a Select Committee makes a recommendation. We called it a memorandum of understanding—we started with the Magna Carta, but felt that was too grand and downgraded it—and it has become a protocol. The Minister and others have been in discussions about the protocol and we look forward to seeing the latest draft—he sent me a draft in July—because it is important that the Select Committee is involved in these processes. That is especially true of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is not in his place at the moment but is very keen on these matters and wants to be involved in the discussions. We have to remember that although ACPO and the Home Office may agree the protocol, the third part of the triangle has not even been elected yet. We do not have any police and crime commissioners, but if we are to have a protocol, they will have to be consulted on it in some way.

[Nick Herbert]

I should point out that the protocol was negotiated with the deputy mayor with responsibility for policing in London and with a representative of the Association of Police Authorities—the chair of a police authority. That side of policing governance was therefore represented. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is important.

[Keith Vaz]

Indeed. I thank the Minister for reminding me. I know that he has mentioned it to me before. He is right. It is important that those two individuals are consulted, but neither of them is going to be a police and crime commissioner. Kit Malthouse is very experienced, but he is already there. A bit of wiggle room may be needed when we get to the end of the process. Let us wait and see. However, the Minister has made excellent progress.

I am concerned about the timing of the election. When Ministers appeared before the Select Committee they were emphatic. We asked them to delay the election until May 2013, after the Olympics, but they emphatically replied that they thought everyone would be able to cope and the election should be held in May 2012. Delaying it until November at an additional cost of £25 million, over and above the cost of police and crime commissioners, is in my view an example of the fact that money can be found when there is a political will to find it.

When negotiations have to be conducted with the Treasury, Ministers are very willing to enter into such negotiations, but I understand from the Home Secretary that the matter has not yet been signed off by the Treasury. When she appeared before the Select Committee on Thursday, she said that she was in negotiations with the Treasury. I should have thought that if the Prime Minister says, “Find the money,” and the Home Secretary says, “Find the money,” even the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to accept that. I am not sure what the negotiations are about, but I assume the Minister will get his £25 million.

[Steve McCabe]

There is an issue about money, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in the past the Government have resisted setting a threshold for the elections? Holding them in November is, as we heard, likely to depress the turnout. What level of turnout would give a new commissioner legitimacy—for example, in the west midlands, with a population of 5 million?

[Keith Vaz]

I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to decide what level of turnout is acceptable for the west midlands, with its population of 5 million. My concern is the electoral register. At that time, electoral registration officers will be involved in their annual canvass. Nobody likes to campaign in November. I cannot remember the last time we had elections in November, although the Minister will no doubt tell us when he winds up. It has certainly not happened in my time in the House, and I have been here for more than 24 years.

November is, of course, not the best weather to campaign, and I am not sure that everyone will open the door to Members of Parliament, even Members as charming as the Minister and the shadow Minister. The register will be in the process of being compiled, it will not be complete, and the basis of the register will be May 2013. The Minister needs to reassure us on this point, but I hope very much that we will take into consideration some of the comments that have been made. I look forward to hearing replies to some of them in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

[Simon Hart]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). May I say how glad I am that he had such a good shooting trip over the weekend, which I fixed for him with the Indian cricket team? I hope their shooting was better than their cricket.

I support the Government’s attempts to reverse Lords amendments 1 to 4. If I had not been convinced of the arguments for doing so before tonight’s debate, I would have been convinced after I heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I suspect he might accuse me of misquoting him, but he said that one of the problems with the election of police commissioners is that they will have a democratic mandate. Surely that is what the proposal is all about. Arguing against it on the basis of a fear that somebody might have a democratic mandate does not sit comfortably with the whole direction of the coalition Government.

I shall concentrate on two themes—first, communities and the police, as they are affected by the election of police commissioners, and secondly, a wider discussion of the broader consequences. Hon. Members know that I represent a small part of the Dyfed-Powys constabulary area in west Wales. There is always a perception that the priorities and work load of rural police forces are different from those of other forces, and to a great extent they are, but even a constabulary such as Dyfed-Powys, which has a huge geographical area to cover, covers some intensely urban and suburban areas which have all the same problems as any other part of Britain.

That is a particularly good example for the House to consider and to which we can apply the principle of elected commissioners to see whether the arguments stack up. I do not think that anyone on either side of the argument is suggesting that the current situation with regard to police authorities is perfect. Of course it is far from perfect. Nobody is arguing that the proposal is perfect in every detail but it is argued, with some validity, that it is considerably better than the situation we have put up with for 50 years. Let us not forget that police authorities have largely been operating under the same structure for that length of time, yet the challenge facing policing and the social dynamic of Britain has changed radically over that period. It is entirely sensible that we should seriously consider reforming the manner in which governance is applied.

There seems to be no question but that the relationship between communities, whether they are urban, rural or suburban, is at best remote and strained, and that when these recommendations are in place, it will be considerably enhanced. Much of the debate has been about the politicisation of the role. I think we exaggerate that. Having read over the weekend some of the contributions to the debate in another place, I recommend to hon. Members the contribution of Lord Dear, who was a serving officer in the west midlands for 40 years. He was happy to go on the record as saying that his initial reservations about the proposal had been gradually eroded as the debate unfolded.

The idea that there is no politicisation now is absurd. There is a huge degree of politics in policing now. Chief constables make rather adept politicians, as it turns out. They agonise over press releases and over the relationship that they have with politicians in their area. In an intervention, I mentioned my force, Dyfed-Powys. I feel rather sorry for the chief constable. Not only does he have a wide range of MPs to deal with from various political parties, but he has a wide range of Assembly Members representing different parties, and several different local authorities. He has to balance the relationships that he has with all those individuals.

The idea that a single elected police commissioner can storm into that relationship, overpower a chief constable and not be held to account by the numerous other elected representatives in that area is exaggerated. It is an excuse to try and undermine a good idea, rather than an evidential basis upon which to do that.

The role of commissioners will be the political one. To coin a phrase, the commissioners will do the politics, enabling the chief constables to do the policing. I do not know whether many Opposition Members look at the website “Labour Uncut”—it is probably their equivalent of “Conservative Home”—but even “Labour Uncut” thinks this is one of the Prime Minister’s better ideas. I think it goes so far as to say that it is his only good idea, a view that I do not share. It grudgingly reaches the conclusion that this democratic improvement is something that the coalition Government got right.

Continuing the theme of politics interfering with police forces, Lord Dear’s speech in April this year referred to his time in HMIC and in particular to Derbyshire police authority 15 to 20 years ago. If ever there was an example of intense political interference with a police force, that was it. It was staunchly party political and had a hugely debilitating effect on that police force. The consequence was that Lord Dear, in his position in HMIC, had to judge the force to be not fit for purpose as a direct result of the party political interference and the sub-standard police authority at the time. Therefore, the idea that this risk applies only to future proposals and has in no way poisoned the operation of constabularies in the past is also a complete myth. I concede the points made by the hon. Member for Gedling and acknowledge that there are concerns. The Minister has addressed some of those and, I am sure, will address more as the evening wears on.

Taking this from a police officer’s perspective, we can see that it is all the more important to address these concerns publicly now. The argument that this is a one-size-fits-all solution and that, because constabularies are not all the one size, it cannot possibly work in all places needs further explanation. The officers’ concerns about the ownership—not in the physical sense—of staff issues, building-related issues and the more mundane elements of policing are, in debating terms, unfinished business.

We also need to reassure people about political ideology. In our various debates on police reform, political ideology has somehow been labelled a negative influence. If political ideology includes the desire to make a police force more accountable and cost-effective and to give better value for money, that is an ideology that I am more than happy to sign up to. In going about our duty, we should not attempt to scare potential voters in these important elections into believing that someone who adopts ideology should be avoided at all costs. There will of course be political ideology, whoever ends up in these positions and whatever party they represent. Even if the status quo were to continue, political ideology pervades the system.

The Minister will no doubt offer some reassurances on the points raised about the crime panel, although I am less worried about it than others seem to be. There will be a large number of locally accountable people in my area of Dyfed-Powys who will be very sensitive to the risk of one man going off piste and running a solo political operation at the expense of the voters who put him there, which I think would be extremely unlikely.

Business of the House (Police (Detention and Bail) Bill)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that these matters will be covered in the Second Reading debate. I set out in my statement last week why it had not been possible to act until the written judgment had been properly considered and until we had received formal advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers that it wished us to proceed in this way. In that regard, I should like to quote the chief constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle. On this issue, he has said:

“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June, and a number of senior people were able to spend some significant time considering the issue, that the seriousness of this became apparent. As the ACPO lead on this issue, I was not going to advise Ministers that the police service needed, in exceptional circumstances, fast track legislation until I had satisfied myself first that the legislation was necessary and that the police service could not operate effectively in light of this judgment, beyond the very short term.”

We acted: within two hours of receiving that written advice, I was here giving a statement to the House announcing that we would introduce emergency legislation. The suggestion that we did not act swiftly flies directly in the face of what ACPO is saying about how it wishes this matter to be considered. Opposition Members do not have the backing of senior police officers for their contention that we acted too slowly in this respect.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Policing Minister, who has accurately reflected the evidence given by the chief constable to the Select Committee on Tuesday. I have one point on the business motion. Is there any outstanding legal advice that the Home Office is seeking on this matter or is the issue of the legal advice now closed?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I am not aware of outstanding legal advice that we have taken. As I told the House last week, the Association of Chief Police Officers sought advice from two QCs before coming to us with a formal request for emergency legislation.

In conclusion, I welcome the continued support from the Opposition Front-Bench team for expediting this Bill. I hope that the whole House will understand the need for fast-tracking and will therefore support the motion.

Police Detention

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

We expect the emergency legislation to be the last word on the subject. We do not believe that it will be complicated to return to the status quo ante, which, after all, was the basis of legal understanding for 25 years. We do not think that it would be possible to leave the matter to an amendment to one of the Bills that are already before the House, because we would not secure that legislation soon enough. It is therefore appropriate for us to consider introducing legislation much more swiftly.

As I said in my statement, we are urgently seeking further advice on how to mitigate the impact on the police. We will do everything that is lawfully possible to ensure that they can conduct their business and deal with the interviewing of suspects, and that is the subject of ongoing discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. These must be busy times at the Home Office, but I am disappointed that there has not been a statement on the Sheikh Raed Salah case as the implications of that are equally important.

The Minister is absolutely right that there must be emergency legislation, and it would be useful if copies of the draft legislation were sent as soon as possible to the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the Home Affairs Committee, so that we can all help the Government to get this legislation through. There is one issue, however: what happens in the next eight or so days? Do we accept the ACPO guidance, or are we saying that individual forces might act differently—I understand that the Met and West Yorkshire police are proposing different responses to this situation—so may we have a clear and definitive statement on the steps the police should take? The Home Secretary will appear before the Committee on Tuesday, so perhaps we can explore these matters with her then.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for introducing emergency legislation, and we will, of course, discuss that as fully as possible with him and with the shadow Secretary of State, as that is the right way to proceed. The Metropolitan police has issued interim guidance on the basis of the judgment, and that is available to other forces. However, we will have further discussions with ACPO about what the appropriate guidance should be for all forces in this interim period, so that it is consistent with our and their obligation to comply with the law as now stated by the High Court. We will do everything possible to mitigate the impact of the judgment, because we want to ensure that the police are not impeded in going about their business and in dealing with criminals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

About 200 people have been released, but 6,000 are in prison serving indeterminate sentences, and we are adding about 80 a month. They are released only when they can demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are a minimal risk to society—that is the present test—but in a prison cell they find it almost impossible to satisfy that test, so they are in a Catch-22 situation. We need long, determinate sentences for serious criminals; that is the way that the criminal justice system works. The experiment introduced by the previous Government has most undoubtedly failed; we will have one in 10 of the prison population serving indefinite sentences if we do not find a better alternative soon.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome the thrust of the Green Paper, and ask the Lord Chancellor or his officials to meet User Voice, a group that consists of ex-offenders who are very keen to work with the Ministry of Justice, and to work with current offenders to stop them taking a path of crime?

[Mr Clarke]

I am sure that I can arrange for one of the team to have a meeting with that interesting organisation. A large number of ex-offenders—not too many, but some—do very valuable work in stopping other people making the mistakes that they made. The social impact bond financing the payment-by-results contract that we have with Peterborough prison is largely delivered by an organisation called St Giles Trust, which has an excellent record of using ex-offenders as mentors. Anything that we can do to encourage that, where there are suitable ex-offenders who really are able to give valuable advice, would certainly be welcomed.

Legal Aid

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right. I am not an expert on the position in London, but I know the Cambridge area and I realise that there is a shortage of good people. I see that with my constituents time and again.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I pay tribute to him for the work that he does as chair of the all-party group on refugees and as a member of the Select Committee.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), if that specialism disappears—and immigration cases are dealt with by specialist legal aid lawyers—vulnerable constituents may go to unscrupulous immigration advisers, be charged huge sums, and, at the end of the day, be left with no recourse except to go to Members of Parliament, who are not really qualified to give them that advice.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am astonished at how many constituents I see who have been poorly advised. The most extreme example was a lady who applied for asylum through a lawyer and got leave to remain, but when she went to renew her passport she discovered that the whole thing was a forgery. We are still trying to resolve that case. We need decent, good quality lawyers, not the rather shabby and disreputable people whom we sometimes see in their place.

The main point that I want to make is about the approach taken by the UK Border Agency. Its attitude is a well-known sticking point. It rarely allows scope for negotiation or mediation. It seems to take the view that it will stick to its decision until a court tells it otherwise almost regardless of the evidence. In so many cases, applications for the right to work were ignored until the agency was ordered to deal with them by higher courts.

Many applications for refugee reunion that are refused are then overturned on appeal, and it seems that the appeal system is being used by the agency as a safety net. Under the Government’s proposals, those cases would no longer be in scope for legal aid, and there will be no opportunity to fix the agency’s errors. I urge the Government to listen to practitioners and the representatives of asylum seekers and refugees. The Government should ensure that asylum support remains in scope as a high priority. They should also ensure that applications for family reunion are treated as extensions to a claim for asylum and thus be within scope for legal aid purposes.

There are certainly cases in which applicants with a poor case abuse the system, looking for appeal after appeal in a fruitless quest for victory. However, those with a strong case are also forced to jump repeated hurdles to get justice. The key solution is for the agency to get more decisions right first time, as was accepted by the Minister for Immigration, when I raised the matter in the Chamber.

I could say more about that, but I want to give a brief example of the impact that the Government’s proposals may have on service providers, and I shall then allow others to speak. I have spoken to service providers about the possible impact of the proposals on various vulnerable groups. I have received comments from a range of organisations and individuals that provide support. I wish that I could have talked to all of them, but I shall focus on the role of Citizens Advice, as I suspect that all Members will appreciate the vital role that it plays in our constituencies, not least in preventing the flood of case work that we all receive from becoming even more torrential.

Citizens Advice has produced detailed briefings showing the unintended consequences of the Government’s proposals on social welfare law work. Its cost-benefit analysis makes a strong case for retaining and even strengthening its role. For instance, its research found that for every £1 of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state potentially saves £2.34; on debt advice, the state saves £2.98; on benefits, it saves £8.80; and on employment advice, it saves £7.13. With impressive understatement, Citizens Advice suggests that the Ministry of Justice

“gets a good return from expenditure on legal help in these areas.”

It estimates that if funding were no longer available for these categories of law, at least £172 million of additional costs would accrue for both state and society.

What effect would the proposals have on the Citizens Advice service more widely? More than half of the bureaux surveyed in December last year said that the changes to legal aid scope and the reduction in fees would pose a real risk to the continuation of their local advice service as a whole. Again, I do not need to remind Members of the havoc that that would wreak in our communities, or of the large amount of extra work that would almost certainly come our way as a result. In passing, I praise the excellent work done by Rachel Talbot and the staff of the Cambridge citizens advice bureau, who are always there to help me and my constituents. I also praise Cambridge city council, which last year provided it with a 25% increase in grant. I wish that all councils did that, rather than pulling resources from such a vital public service.

Time is running short, but I wish to raise two brief points. The first, raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), is about the effect of combining the legal aid proposals with Lord Jackson’s proposals on clinical negligence cases. Lord Jackson was clear about it. He said:

“I stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility…the maintenance of legal aid at no less than the present levels makes sound economic sense and is in the public interest”.

Will the Government take account of that plea, and avoid a double whammy? Legal aid changes and the Jackson proposals together would mean that those who have suffered through error would not be able to continue with their cases.

Secondly, I flag up a concern raised with me by Andy McGowan, the access and funding officer of Cambridge university students union. He is one of those rare people on free school meals who got to Oxbridge—the Government would like to see more of them—and he wants to practise as a criminal legal aid solicitor; he is driven by a motivation that I am sure we would all endorse to help the most vulnerable in society. He asks how he can fund the legal practice course in the absence of the training contract grant scheme, knowing that he will be unlikely to be as well paid as those lawyers for whom money is the principle motivation. If we lose people like Andy from the profession and from public service, we will create a less fair future for many years to come.

It is not my intention to attack the Government’s proposals without offering an alternative. That is not a helpful or effective way of approaching such debates, and I am always disappointed when others do not say clearly what they would do differently. There is clearly much in the Government’s proposals that is sensible. I cannot claim to be an expert on legal aid, and I have relied heavily on the hard work of many other people in preparing this speech. I am grateful to them for all that they do to preserve what is good about the present system, and for their wider struggle to provide access to justice for all, especially for the most vulnerable. The case that I have attempted to build draws on the research and evidence of others. The same is true of the alternative that I offer the Government.

The Law Society, which for a long time was officially responsible for legal aid, has continued to play a major role in shaping the debate on this important subject. It has produced an alternative set of proposals that aim to go beyond the savings that the Government have set out. It projects savings of £384 million, which could even reach slightly more, yet at the same time it claims to be able to protect the vulnerable about whom I have said so much. The Government are duty bound to look seriously at those proposals and, if they are workable, to adopt them. If the Government are serious about access to justice, they must listen to those who know what is necessary to provide it.

I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say, and to the Minister’s response. I hope that he will signal a willingness to modify the proposals in the light of the concerns that have been raised.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments carefully. The new clause would put a lot of responsibility on HMIC. Does he feel that it has the resources to deal with what he would have it deal with? As we know, it published a report only yesterday on police numbers. Does he not think that if we give it this responsibility, it would need the resources to deal with it?

[Vernon Coaker]

My right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, makes a reasonable point. Of course, there would be a resources issue for HMIC that the Government would need to consider, but given the importance of the reform that the Government are seeking to introduce, and given that the police themselves say that this would be the biggest change to the policing model in this country for centuries, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on us to say to HMIC that we will ensure that it has the necessary resources.

The Local Government Association—I do not know whether the Minister has a higher regard for it than for police authorities—is also totally opposed to the reform. It is difficult to find a single council that supports it. Surrey county council sometimes edges towards it, but it is difficult to find many others. I would have thought that if this were a great reform, the police would be coming forward and saying, “This will make a huge difference”, but of course they are not. The challenge, therefore, is to find the demand for the change. Local people are not demanding it, so who actually is? The Minister seems to be driven by a belief that he knows best. He accused others of being elitist, but if everybody is saying that the Government have got it wrong, there might be an element of truth in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I will restrict my comments to the impact of elected commissioners in west Wales, an area that has been referred to already. My comments are driven not by ideology, as some have suggested, but by my practical experience of the area, the reaction of police officers both junior and senior, and, perhaps even more importantly, the reaction of members of the public.

The context to this debate is the ongoing consultation about the future of the coastguard. One might wonder what the connection is, but it is simply that around Milford Haven—the important waterway that divides the constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire from Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire—there is an enormous local attachment to and affection for that emergency service, which might not immediately appear to be an emergency service. Our community is proud of it, feels that it is part of it, and feels that it owns it. It is part of the fabric and architecture of the community. People in the community know only too well that if they pick up the telephone, they will get a trustworthy and local response to what are often traumatic problems.

The reason why I paint that little contextual picture is that Dyfed Powys police, to whom the shadow Minister referred, cover a vast and diverse area. The Minister is not entirely unfamiliar with the area. The police force is not devoted purely, as some would flippantly suggest, to sheep rustling and stolen quad bikes. One in seven terrorist incidents in the UK have a connection to our constabulary. It has the onerous responsibility of looking after the UK’s most important energy hub in Milford Haven, which has two refineries, two liquefied natural gas terminals, and the biggest gas-fired power station under construction in Europe. It is an important strategic area, which our stretched police force has to look after. That is the reason for the great connection with the local community, which I would argue is not enhanced under the current arrangements, but would be enhanced under the proposed arrangements.

Opposition Members may argue that I am simply trotting out the ideological prose as laid out by my elders and betters, but I consulted just three people in preparing the comments that I am about to make: two police constables currently serving in the Dyfed Powys force, and one rather more senior officer with whom I had a conversation at the weekend. The local police authority has—reasonably, sensibly and in a measured fashion—repeated the concerns that the shadow Minister articulated.

The two police constables, without any provocation, said to me, “At long last we’ll be able to do the job that we originally joined up to do.” I pushed them on this point, and their responses entirely endorse the Government’s proposals. They endorse, welcome and encourage the involvement of the local community. The crime panels, which are not directly related to new clause 4, will provide the accountability that some suggest is missing. The involvement of local authorities and elected individuals who are accountable to their wards and regions is a crucial piece of this jigsaw. As was said by two police constables and a more senior officer, whose rank I cannot reveal lest I give away his identity, that involvement will lead to improved prioritisation, which is in the community’s interests; improved cost effectiveness, which is vital in the Dyfed Powys force; and improved customer satisfaction—a phrase I hesitate to use.

In discussing cost and budget reductions in the coming weeks and months, the senior officer was certain that Dyfed Powys police could maintain a decent police force that would safeguard the interests of the community and businesses. However, he said that it would be different. It will not smell the same, and in many regards there will be an entirely different form of policing from what we have been used to. That does not mean that it will compromise the safety of the community or that crime will rise. Those ideas are being bandied about irresponsibly by mischief makers. The changes do not mean for one minute that people will sleep less safely in their beds; quite the opposite. There is a realistic recognition that things have to change, that they will change and that they will look different, but that those changes will guarantee a reasonable cost-effective police force for our community.

Only this morning in Prime Minister’s questions, as Members will recall, there was a suggestion that the proposals will compromise safety and the interests of the communities and the many businesses that rely on police protection—particularly in Milford Haven. I really would urge caution, because that is not the case. It is irresponsible for Opposition Members to bandwagon, to make political statements and to suggest that the proposals will damage the safety of our communities.

The House need not take this point from a lowly Member who represents a distant part of west Wales that most Members, I regret to say, have probably never heard of. As evidence, I put to the Minister the impassioned pleas of two police constables and a senior officer in one of the forces that will be most affected by the proposals. They say that there is nothing to fear, and that with a reasoned approach and a sensible balanced debate we can produce an outcome that is in the interests not only of the Treasury, which always lurks somewhere in the shadows of these debates, but of our communities, which have such great affection for their police forces, upon which they so permanently and reasonably depend.

[Keith Vaz]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who rightly put the debate in the context of what is happening locally in his constituency. Every right hon. and hon. Member can talk about the local impact of the changes that the Government are making, but I will concentrate my remarks on new clause 4, and particularly on the desire of Opposition Front Benchers that there should be an impact study of the Government’s proposals before they are put in place.

The Government have embarked on a very ambitious and challenging policing agenda. I have just finished reading the speech that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made on Monday, and he used in it the memorable words:

“Reform cannot wait; we do not have the luxury of delay while a committee of wise men”—

slightly politically incorrect—

“deliberate and eventually agree to differ.”

I am not sure whether the Home Secretary would compose a committee of that type, but what the Minister was saying was that the Government want to get on with reform.

Those of us who serve on the Home Affairs Committee have been pretty exhausted by the amount of proposed legislation and the changes that the Government have brought into effect since last May. However, one would expect that from a Government who took office after 13 years in opposition. Of course Ministers, particularly the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who I know has a passion for the debate on policing, want the Government to get on with what they want to do.

[Michael Ellis]

Was the right hon. Gentleman not also exhausted by the 13 years of the previous Government and their 10 criminal justice Bills and 3,000 new criminal offences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently joined the Home Affairs Committee, that I was totally exhausted. That was why I hoped we would have a little break when the new Government got into office. Members of the Committee who are in their places today—my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and indeed the hon. Gentleman himself when he is freed from the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, on which he is currently sitting—know that the change is rapid. I therefore have some sympathy with the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal that there ought to be an impact study.

However, I am not absolutely convinced that the best organisation to perform the impact study is Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will convince me of that by the time we get to the Division Lobby. I am not sure where that organisation will fit in the new landscape of policing. If my hon. Friend believes for one moment that a report by HMIC, even though it is under the distinguished leadership of Sir Denis O’Connor, will unite the House or provide the basis for moving forward, he can look at what happened to the report that it published yesterday. Opposition Front Benchers accepted it, but I caught a glimpse of the Minister on the BBC yesterday, and he did not necessarily accept the report. He may or may not have accepted part of it, but as we all know, he certainly did not accept that front-line policing would be affected. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister’s views on that today.

My plea is that the enormous reform and challenging agenda ought perhaps to pause for a short while, to allow Parliament to consider in even greater detail what the Government are proposing. The Home Affairs Committee has published a report on police commissioners. We did not comment on the idea, because we took it as read that the Government wished to introduce them, depending on the outcome of the Bill, which has yet to be finally voted upon. We examined the implications of what the Government planned to do once the commissioners were in place. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted a number of the points that we made, particularly about clarifying the relationship between the commissioners and the chief constables. We will discuss that in a later debate.

My concern is that we are not stopping and thinking clearly enough, even if we might want to go in the direction that the Government suggest. The Home Affairs Committee examined the need for a study of the proposals, and obviously the most appropriate body to make one would have been the Committee itself. However, we have been rushing to deal with each piece of Government legislation as quickly as we possibly can. I am not sure that HMIC should produce the study, though.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was one of the best Ministers in the last Government, and when he left the Home Office he had gained a huge reputation for what he had done. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that when the previous Government introduced radical changes they asked HMIC for an impact study or paused to allow other bodies to conduct inquiries. I can well remember, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, a proposal from the then Home Secretary to replace police committees. Then, all of a sudden, we received a letter saying that the Government had changed their mind, having accepted in full our recommendations on the subject. There is a danger in picking the wrong organisation to undertake the study. The point that I believe my hon. Friend is trying to make in new clause 4, which is the right point to make, is that we should stop and consider the matter, not that we should necessarily delay it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

If I may, I will come to that matter when we reach that specific group of amendments, because the Government have tabled amendments to address it. We must find a way to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the wishes of the Welsh Assembly, which it expressed in rejecting the legislative consent motion. I shall address that question at the appropriate time, but I wanted to respond specifically to the right hon. Member for Torfaen.

When moving new clause 4, the hon. Member for Gedling made a number of wider points in which he attempted to open up once again the arguments for and against police and crime commissioners. I shall not dwell on those other than to say that he has expressed support in the past for the concept of a direct component in police authorities, as was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).

In addition, in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling moved an amendment for directly elected chairs of police authorities, and the previous Government twice proposed a democratic element. I accept that there is a difference between that Government and this one, but the difference is not that this Government do not believe in democratic reform of police authorities—it appears that all parties do. Rather, the difference is that the previous Government backed down twice, but we have no intention of doing so, because there was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, because having directly elected police authorities was separately a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment.

We now know that the latest proposal from the hon. Member for Gedling is for directly elected chairs of police authorities. In moving and voting for that amendment, the hon. Gentleman wholly undermined his argument on cost, because implementation of directly elected chairs of police authorities would cost not the same as police and crime commissioners, but more. Therefore, the most expensive proposal for democratic reform of police authorities in the House of Commons is from the Opposition spokesman.

What is wrong with proposed new clause 4—I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester East on this —is that it would put in the hands of the inspectorate of constabulary the power to hold an inquiry, and thereby to delay implementation of the Bill. Constitutionally, that would be very difficult. It would place the inspectorate in an invidious position. Parliament should decide reforms of this kind, after taking into account the views of both Houses and consulting widely. The idea that we can somehow park these matters into an inquiry by an independent body that is meant to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of policing is wrong. It would be very wrong for that organisation to do that, as it would effectively set up the inspectorate as judge and jury on a decision that Parliament had made. We therefore believe that these measures are the right thing to do, and we intend to proceed with them. Nevertheless, we are listening and will continue to do so.

In conclusion, on new clause 4, I would like to point out that, when the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was proposing democratic reform of police authorities, he said that those who claimed to have the power, and who wished to hold the power, should therefore be accountable for the power. That is the right principle, and the basis on which we should proceed.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s peroration, but I want to make a point about the timing of the election. During the course of the inquiry, the Select Committee picked up some concern about the election taking place in May next year, just before the Olympics, when people ought to be concentrating on security measures and related issues. Is the Minister quite satisfied that this is the right timing?

Reforming Civil Justice

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I feel strongly, as does my hon. Friend, that we have an unacceptable compensation culture in this country. Like him, I notice it in my daily life. I think that doctors, teachers, policemen and most professional people are constantly concerned about the possible risk of litigation when they do perfectly ordinary things in the course of their daily lives. I dare say that the kind of submissions coming to Ministers are, in comparison with when I first received them, now so full of concerns about judicial review, the Human Rights Act and other legal constraints on what can be done that we are getting further and further away from common sense whereby people can exercise their judgment and, of course, be accountable to the law when they are at risk of breaking it—but only when they are at risk of breaking sensible law and might face litigation at reasonable cost.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I think that what the Lord Chancellor has said today has cross-party support. May I take him back to his comments about mediation? Is he suggesting that there should be mandatory mediation for very small claims? If he is, we have a problem with the number of qualified mediators. Will he look at this issue because it is all very well referring these cases, but we need the mediators to be able to deal with them?

[Mr Clarke]

We will make mediation an automatic part of the process if the result of the consultation supports such a move. Of course there will be cases that mediation will not resolve, and in those cases people will undoubtedly have the right to go to court. In the small claims courts we are already seeing a rapid extension of very successful mediation, often by means of telephone conference, which is resolving the smaller disputes.

As for the county court, following our extension of its jurisdiction, we will expect people to go along and be introduced to the prospect of mediation. We are consulting on the kind of people who will be required to conduct mediation sensibly, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a certain amount of skill and experience will be required for the process to produce the right results.

Police

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I have met my hon. Friend and his local chief constable. He knows that I consider this matter very carefully, and he made his points very well on behalf of his constituents. I will discuss damping in a moment, but my hon. Friend’s comments reflect the fact that there will always be differences of view in this House between Members whose police forces benefit from damping and who therefore do not wish to see any change in its application, and Members whose forces have, effectively, paid out under damping and who desperately wish there to be a change. It is therefore not possible for the Government to satisfy everybody. We have had to take decisions in the round, and in accordance with what we consider to be the best and fairest way to address the totality of policing in this country.

As I have said, I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut. As a result, each force will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2011-12 and 2012-13, thereby ensuring that no one force will face an unacceptably large reduction in its budget. This mirrors the approach we took in the in-year savings following the emergency Budget and, importantly, it is what police forces were expecting and planning upon.

I appreciate that different forces have different views on this decision, as do hon. Members, and I understand why forces such as the West Midlands and Dorset—and, indeed, Northamptonshire—are keen to see damping phased out or removed entirely, while others such as Cumbria and Cheshire welcome its retention. As I have said, in making decisions such as these I must, of course, think about policing as a whole. I also appreciate the wider case against damping, and there is a strong argument for moving at the right time to a full application of the formula, recognising the policing needs of each area, but doing so now would have created real difficulty. I should also point out that the vast majority of funding that forces receive is allocated according to the formula. Therefore, force level allocations will remain as I announced in December.

Historically, there have been a number of ring-fenced grants to police forces. The Government’s general approach has been to remove ring-fencing and to roll funding into the main grant so that forces have greater local flexibility in determining how resources are spent. That has been the case for the rural policing fund. From 2006-07, it had already been amalgamated with four other specific grants to create what is known as rule 2 grant, but we are now rolling that into the police main grant. I want to emphasise, especially to Members representing rural constituencies, that as result of my decision on damping levels the decision on rolling this grant into the main grant means that no force will be worse off.

In some instances, I believe the case for ring-fencing grants remains strong. Outside London, the neighbourhood policing fund will be ring-fenced for the next two years to ensure the continuing funding of police community support officers, who play a valuable role in community policing. When police and crime commissioners are introduced, it will be up to them to make decisions over funding. In London, where the Mayor can already exercise this local determination, the ring fence is being lifted now, but the fund is being maintained at £340 million next year and £338 million the following year. When some Members make their allegations about cuts in front-line policing, they might like to note that that ring-fenced fund has been maintained.

The counter-terrorism specific grant has been relatively protected with a 10% cut in real terms over four years. This is a cut of just 1% in cash terms, and must be seen against a very rapid increase in resource and capital spending—some 49% in the last four years. The Government and the police service are confident that there will be no reduction in police effectiveness in this crucial area, where savings can be made but where well over £500 million will continue to be spent each year.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister has rightly put the emphasis on the local areas, because it is their budget in the end. Does he not agree, however, that there is a responsibility on the Home Office to show leadership in respect of local forces? That is especially the case for procurement; the Home Office should encourage local forces to collaborate and pool resources in order to procure.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I will address that issue later, as I intend to set out the savings that I believe can be made. The Home Office has a role to play in driving that, and in asking for the leadership of forces to share services and collaborate so that we can realise the considerable savings that are possible in procurement.

I was talking about funding to ensure national security. Similarly, funding for Olympic security has been prioritised. Up to £600 million will remain available if required for the safety and security programme, as originally pledged, although we expect that that should be delivered for rather less, at £475 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I always know it is a mistake to take interventions from my hon. Friend, but no doubt it is a mistake I will continue to make. I enjoy his interventions, but I note that, although it seemed to me that Opposition Front-Bench Members were giving lots of nods to what he said, they have still not understood the importance of ensuring a proper balance between security and liberty in this country. In spite of everything the new leader of their party has said, they have still not understood that.

There are also areas beyond the HMIC’s report—this comes directly to the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—where savings can be made by forces working together. There are 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 police forces, and some 5,000 staff. We estimate that savings of some £330 million could be found through joint procurement of goods, services and IT. The vast bulk of these savings —around a third of a billion pounds or more—will be additional to the savings identified by HMIC.

The time for just talking about IT convergence, collective procurement, collaboration, sharing and outsourcing services is over. We cannot afford not to do these things, and we cannot afford to delay, so, where necessary, the Government will mandate the changes required. That is why I am about to lay regulations before Parliament to require the police service to buy certain IT vehicles, and so on, through specified national framework arrangements.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I welcome very much what he has just said. This issue has been the subject of much discussion in the Home Affairs Committee, driven by its former member, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). There is a need for central procurement: a list, a book, a catalogue—not quite like Argos, but something that can be used as a template for various police forces to choose from.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support and I hope this approach will command support across the whole House, because it does make sense for the 43 forces to procure together where that will make savings; and the savings are quite considerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The situation in the west midlands is clear. The number of police officers is being cut and that is having an impact on the area.

The latest research on the links between police and crime from Civitas, which the Minister presumably regards as a bastion of left-wing profligacy—he shakes his head to indicate that he disagrees with Civitas—shows that there is a

“strong relationship between the size of police forces and national crime rates”.

That report states:

“A nation with a larger proportion of police officers is somewhat more likely to have a lower crime rate. A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”

More importantly, perhaps, those on the Government Benches are ignoring the public. Today’s poll shows that two thirds of people believe that crime will rise as a result of the Home Secretary’s cuts. People do not want the cuts to the police that the Government are introducing.

The Minister often resorts to the claim that it is Labour’s red tape which is responsible for the fact that only 11%—to quote the figure that he uses—of force strength is visible and available. He fails to point out, in a misrepresentation of the HMIC analysis, that that figure for a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service does not take account of the officers on late shift, night shift or rest day, or of the officers working on serious investigations, counter-terrorism, drugs, cyber crime or child protection.

The right hon. Gentleman should consider for a moment what would happen if his own efficiency were measured in the same way. Let us imagine that the test of Ministers’ efficiency was the amount of time in a 24/7 period that they spent speaking in the House of Commons. The amount of time that the Policing Minister spends sleeping, eating and working on knife crime, counter-terrorism or long-term planning would not be counted, as the Government do not count comparable time for the police.

On the basis of the Minister’s week in the Chamber for debate and in the Bill Committee—he has been busy —he gets to an average visibility 24/7 of not 11%, which the police manage, but 3.27%, and that includes the radio time that he was forced to do on Sunday. His visibility is not as good as that of the police, but I am sure he has some efficiency plans to share his red boxes across Departments. His boss, the Home Secretary, is at 0%. Where, by the way, is the Home Secretary?

[Keith Vaz]

I commend my right hon. Friend for her great interest in what the Minister has been doing. It is a fascinating study. I know that she is making a powerful point, but perhaps she could be a little charitable to the Minister. It may be that the Home Office did not envisage the kind of cuts that she has been talking about. Does she agree that Ministers should go back to the Treasury to explain that the effects of the cuts are very severe indeed, and that an additional special grant ought to be given to the Home Office to deal with that?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It may well be that Ministers believed the figures they were given by the Treasury and believed that front-line services would not be hit. However, the pace and the scale of the cuts are indeed hitting front-line services. They are having an impact on police forces across the country. Ministers ought to go back to the Treasury to discuss that again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), and given the risk of having the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) make throat-cutting signs at me, as well, I will try to be as brief as possible; we started off talking about police cuts, but I think we will soon have cuts to this debate. We have heard excellent speeches and I am sure that the House, eager to get on to the next business, will not want me to detain it for too long on this subject.

This is a very important subject, however, and I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, who made a thoughtful and eloquent speech. It was right for him to praise the work of the previous Government, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and the fact that there was such investment in the police service. He was right to praise them for the amount of money they spent, which has resulted, of course, as he then told us, in the economic problem that is affecting the country, and the need, in this Government’s view, to try to cut that expenditure.

What was important about the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds is that he concentrated on the bread-and-butter issues that sometimes elude us when we discuss these matters in the House. Front-Benchers are rightly concerned about numbers; indeed, the police grant debate is getting very much like a debate on immigration, in which Front-Benchers rightly concentrate on numbers. However, to the public, the real issue is, how does this affect them in their constituencies? How does it affect the local police force? Are they going to get less of a service than they had before the suggested changes?

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), whom we in the Home Affairs Committee greatly miss, has his own version of dealing with these cuts. He has set up a help zone, so if anyone needs a policeman, they do not necessarily have to go to the local police station; they can visit the hon. Gentleman’s staff. I am glad he paid tribute to his staff, because the number of calls they get will probably increase as a result of his contribution today.

Chief constables have rightly taken up the challenge set by this Government, and their tone has changed enormously since the proposals were announced. Certainly, the tone of the chief constable of Manchester, in his latest press release of 9 February, is quite different from the one he adopted before, when he lamented the number of police officers who would be taken off his payroll. Now he is saying that he welcomes the need for collaboration; indeed, I think he said in the final sentence of his press release that he was “upbeat” about the cuts. Of course, that contrasts with what he has said before, and certainly contrasts with the quotes given to this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who has quoted other chief constables who are very concerned. I am not sure whether it is because one chief constable is starting off their career and another is ending theirs; but the fact is that they are in a very difficult position.

The Minister is going to have to accept that, during his term as Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—the Select Committee has always found him extremely helpful and courteous in providing us with information—there are going to be fewer police officers. It is difficult for him to say that, and certainly difficult for someone like me, who, in debates such as this in 23 years in this House, has always expected Conservative Ministers and shadow Ministers—and, indeed, Liberal Democrats—to ask for more police officers, rather than fewer. However, fewer officers is the inevitable consequence, and whether the figure is the 10,000 talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the smaller figure mentioned by the Government—we do not have a precise figure from them—or the 20,000 referred to by the Police Federation, the fact is there will be fewer police officers.

This is, therefore, a big challenge, which is why I welcome what the Minister said about procurement.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Keith Vaz]

Of course. Unless it is to tell me that I have to stop, I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Campbell]

As if I would. My right hon. Friend talks about the work of his Committee. The Minister said that although the damping mechanism was applied this time, it may not be in the future, at a cost of a further £30 million of cuts to Northumbria police. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek to work very closely with the Government should those changes to that formula and mechanism ever come to fruition?

[Keith Vaz]

The Select Committee is always keen to work with the Government. I do not wish to prejudge the report on police finances that we will be publishing in a fortnight’s time. The Minister gave good evidence to the Committee, providing some interesting figures, and the House will have to wait for that report to see what members of the Committee have had to say.

The Minister is right to focus on procurement. He is also right to say that 80% of the budget relates to staffing, but that does not mean that we should not examine the issue of procurement. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is not in his place, talked about this issue, and Essex and Kent police, along with other police authorities, are working together. One of the real questions for the previous Government is why we had 13 years of record expenditure but perhaps not the challenges that ought to have been made by Ministers about how the money was spent—that is not a criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I am not saying that the money was misspent, but it is important to examine what happened to that expenditure.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds discussed bureaucracy. I think that he will find agreement on that issue across the whole House but, as he said, we tend to talk about these things but what really matters is implementation. That brings me to my third and penultimate point, which relates to the new landscape of policing. I say to the Minister that we do not yet have a narrative on crime and crime reduction from this Government. We have had some ambitious plans. The Select Committee has never worked so hard to keep up with the number of changes that the Government are envisaging, first with the police and crime commissioners, then with changes on police financing and then on the new landscape of policing. However, we needed to have some kind of a template before we embarked on those major changes.

We know that the Government want to abolish the Serious Organised Crime Agency and that the National Policing Improvement Agency is going to go, but it should have been up to the NPIA to give leadership to local police forces on procurement. What is going to happen now? It seems that individual forces will be charged for access to the databases of the new national crime agency. What worries me about the budget is that that has not been factored in. It is vital that we know what extra charges will fall on local police forces as a result of the creation of the national crime agency.

My final point is that whatever budgets a local police authority puts in place, a police and crime commissioner will be elected. As the House knows, the previous Government changed their position on the election of members of police authorities. Now that the Government have decided that this is what they want to do, people should allow police and crime commissioners the opportunity to manage the local police force. However, they will be inheriting a budget that has been set by a previous police authority, and the demands from the newly elected police and crime commissioners for more police officers will be much more important to the Government than even the demands from Labour Members.

So there is still much work to be done on the landscape of policing and I do not think we can accept the current situation as being the end. Many right hon. and hon. Members, including some from Liverpool and Staffordshire, and the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bury St Edmunds, have pointed out that there will be fewer officers, and that does mean a reduction in service. How local police forces deal with that depends on the leadership of Ministers, which I hope will be forthcoming.

Legal Aid Reform

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the reform of legal aid.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing that this important topic be debated prior to the closure of the consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales. The consultation paper proposes to cut an estimated £350 million from the civil legal aid budget. Roughly two thirds of those cuts are directed at people who are currently legally aid-able, and one third will come from remuneration cuts to providers, who are expected to do the same work but for less money.

Some £279 million will be cut from civil legal aid, and about half a million people will lose their entitlement to legal aid. The majority of them come from low- income households, and the Ministry of Justice’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges that they will be predominantly women, black and minority ethnic people and ill and disabled people. However, while the consultation acknowledges this, it also says that it is not just about cost but that it is the “right thing to do”. I believe that I can demonstrate that both the cost argument and the statement that it is the “right thing to do” are incorrect, and that the implementation of these proposals to reduce civil legal aid will hit the poorest hardest, increase the cost to other public bodies, and have a potentially catastrophic effect on not-for-profit advice agencies, including citizens advice bureaux and law centres.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the issues that should be addressed is poor decision making by public authorities, particularly in immigration, where the UK Border Agency fails to make good decisions based on good evidence? That is why people have to go to the tribunal, and that is why they need legal aid.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. I will come to that later when I suggest some ways of saving money in the system.

Whole swathes of advice areas are removed from the scope of legal aid, particularly the social welfare law category. Welfare benefit is removed completely from legal aid. According to the Ministry of Justice’s own equality impact assessment, 63% of clients who received legal aid in this category had a disability, 54% were female and 27% were from a black and minority ethnic background. However, this is justified by stating that the

“accessible, inquisitorial and user friendly nature of the tribunal means appellants can generally present their case without any assistance”.

It also states:

“Advice and help are available from a number of sources including Job Centre Plus and the Benefits Enquiry Line”.

So people who have had their claim refused by Jobcentre Plus or the Benefits Agency are to go to them for support in challenging the decision and they will help them. I have to say that that is not the experience I had when I worked for an advice agency.