Policing and Crime Bill
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Kevan Jones(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
Yes. It is time to consider that proposal irrespective of whether such houses are provided by the voluntary sector or the statutory sector. A network of that type of provision across the country would get away from the use of police cells. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they could be commissioned at a local level, and third sector development could provide very good value for money. I welcome the proposed changes, but they need to be amended in Committee.
I broadly welcome the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is right to say that we cannot consider it in isolation away from the funding of our police forces or of our fire and rescue services. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave the impression that this is all about driving through efficiency locally, forgetting that more than £2 billion has been taken out of policing by her Government in the past six years. In addition, money has been taken out of local fire and rescue services. Before she claims that I am arguing for inefficiency, I stand proud to be the Member of Parliament for the most efficient police force in the UK—Durham. However, efficiency has been achieved at a cost. The central Government grant has been cut and 350 officers have had to go. She talks about precepts and making local government accountable. That is fine, but the system needs to change. An increase in the precept in Durham, on both the fire service and the police, will not fill the gap created by central Government cuts. In a perverse way, the Government seem to be moving money away from more deprived areas to the more affluent areas of the south.
On the relationship between the fire services and the police, I am not opposed to efficiencies relating to the back office or anything else, but the hon. Lady did say she did not want the police fighting fires and firefighters catching criminals. I agree. We need to be clear that there will be no merging of the frontline. I will support anything that can make the service better for people and more efficient. The firefighters and police officers that I know want that, too.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the sentiment the hon. Gentleman expresses, but does he agree that there are circumstances in which police officers and firefighters may want to stray over the line into each other’s areas of responsibility? There was a famous case not very long ago where police officers stood back and watched somebody floundering in a pond almost drowning, because it was not their job and they did not feel trained enough to go in and save that person. They had to wait for the fire service to arrive. Surely there are circumstances where having complementary skills can be beneficial to the safety of the public.
Mr Jones
Well, yes, but that is not about blurring their roles. I do not think that that is what the public want. They want their police officers to protect them and their streets, and they want their firefighters to respond to house fires and other types of emergencies—road traffic accidents and so on. The public want specialist skills and I would be totally opposed to any blurring of the lines.
There are some positive measures in the Bill that are a step forward. I caution my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that, while we need to table many amendments, voting against the Bill on Report would not be understood by the public. It would give the impression that we did not care about the things in the Bill that should be welcomed. Instead, we should be highlighting the things that are ideologically driven.
Armed Forces Bill
Debate between Kit Malthouse and Kevan Jones(8 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, acknowledge the sentiments in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham. I underline the fact that they are important, but it is also important that the armed forces retain the ability and the expertise to investigate these offences when they occur, not least because they may occur overseas from time to time, where civilian police authorities will not be present.
From my history with the police, I know that when an allegation of rape has been made, the first 24 to 48 hours are critical in gathering forensics, preserving evidence and handling the victim. It is critical that that is done correctly. Any delay after an allegation leads to a serious diminution in the possibility of any kind of conviction. If we had been presented with evidence that showed that conviction rates were significantly lower in the military than in the civilian police force, I might have had a bit more sympathy with the new clause, but the truth is that there is no evidence to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman referred to workload. The greater workload among civilian police is a negative, not a positive. I was responsible for prompting a restructure of the Metropolitan police’s rape command, not least because I became aware in my role as deputy mayor for policing that there was a huge backlog of rape cases awaiting investigation. As I have said before, the longer the wait, the less likely a conviction. The fact that a civilian police officer might be handling a caseload of 26 to 35 cases is a bad thing, not a good thing. It means that quite a lot of cases are not getting the attention that they need. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concern and certainly share it, but, for all those reasons, it is critical that the military police retain the ability, and therefore must have the training and expertise, to deal with these cases.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Members for Keighley and for North West Hampshire said. However, the fact of the matter is that it is wrong for anything to be in place that ensures that victims—even if it is just one case—do not come forward because they think that the service police are part of the military chain of command, although I accept what the hon. Member for Keighley said about the separation of the two. We will look at the matter in more detail.
I also accept what the hon. Member for North West Hampshire said about resources and the pressures on individual police officers dealing with multiple cases, but expertise must be an issue. If someone investigates, for example, one rape or sexual assault allegation only every two or three years, even with the best training in the world, their expertise could be limited compared with someone who does so regularly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Review of compensation available to veterans suffering from mesothelioma
‘Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review of how former members of the armed forces who have contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of their military service are compensated, and must lay the report of this review before both Houses of Parliament.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kit Malthouse
The new clause is close to my heart, not least because Catherine Crawford, the first and last chief executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority, with whom I worked closely and who became a great friend, died of mesothelioma only last year. She had spent her career in government buildings and did not know where she contracted the disease from, but somewhere along the line, she did.
I am, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in not supporting the new clause, because it is, quite frankly, a bit vague. Instead of commissioning a review without any notion of independence, where it would be commissioned from or what the timeframe would be—it would have to be commissioned within 12 months, but it could take 10 years after that to complete—I would much rather that other weapons in Parliament’s armoury, such as Adjournment debates, Back-Bench business and all the rest of it, were used to press the Government into swift action, and such action has been promised. I acknowledge that the Government have been a bit slow to deal with this issue, but I am not sure that putting something into legislation adds anything to the urgency. Nothing would necessarily happen post the review; the Government would not be compelled to take any action after the review.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North Durham would consider withdrawing the new clause in the hope that he might return to the issue on Report. That would give the Government a window to announce what they are actually going to do. If the matter comes before the whole House, he may find that there is more sympathy for his proposal if the Government have not laid out any specific plans.
Mr Jones
I am not in the habit of helping the Government, but I think that the hon. Member for North West Hampshire makes a constructive suggestion. We have debated the new clause today, and when we discuss this issue again on the Floor of the House, we will be interested to see whether the Government have moved forward as the hon. Member for Keighley has suggested that they might. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Homosexual acts no longer to constitute grounds for discharging a member of HM armed forces (No. 2)
‘(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 146(4), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.
(3) In section 147(3), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.