Public Services

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Like other Opposition Members, I see this Queen’s Speech as a bit of a fraud. It is being used in the most cynical way by those who see Parliament as no more than window dressing for their latest plot. The Prime Minister claims that his proposals reflect the people’s priorities. Some of them certainly reflect the anxiety and damage resulting from Tory austerity and the Brexit chaos that he has created. Of course, I am pleased that our police will be given the power to arrest foreign criminals, although, in large part, we already possess that power through the European arrest warrant. Of course it is good that we are being offered some new police officers to compensate for the 21,000 that the Tories have cut since they have been in office, but these promises are designed to deflect attention from the fact that the people who caused these problems are sitting on the Government Benches.

I welcome promises of longer jail terms for serious sex offenders and stopping the early release of sex offenders already behind bars, but we do not need new legislation to achieve that. The Prime Minister does not need a Queen’s Speech, nor does he even need a parliamentary majority. He could encourage his Ministers to do that today. We could stop letting out the people we have behind bars.

Then there are the proposals to tackle electoral fraud, based on almost as many allegations of fraud as the number levelled at the Prime Minister in his dealings with his American muse. It is just as well that we cannot change the law based on those allegations or he would be in real trouble. We know that 3.5 million people do not have any photo ID and that the idea has the potential to deprive thousands of the opportunity to vote. It could be an electoral Windrush, although it would be no accident this time; it would be the deprivation of a fundamental right by deliberate design.

If this programme was really intended to reflect people’s priorities, there would be a children’s mental health Bill, measures to address the IVF postcode lottery for those suffering from infertility, and action to address the shocking delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment that are costing lives needlessly. There would also be a recognition that if a five-year-old with cystic fibrosis in Scotland can get access to the drug Orkambi, so should young Jemima in my constituency and every other child like her, the length and breadth of this country.

If this was not fantasy and fraudulent politics, we would have legislation to address the shambles that is social care, but we all know what happened the last time the Tories dared voice their true intentions on this, so this time they are going to avoid it altogether—just like they are avoiding a Bill to provide carers with an entitlement to statutory leave, a promise also outstanding from their last manifesto.

If the Prime Minister really cared what the public thought, there would be legislation to protect private tenants, powers to tackle rogue landlords, and measures to redress the balance between local communities and the rights of developers, especially when it comes to conversions of family homes to houses in multiple occupation and the constant building of inappropriate accommodation against local wishes. Of course, there would also be real help for homeless families, those in the Travelodges, the run-down hotels and the bed and breakfast joints, and an end to the waste of millions of pounds on pointless lottery schemes designed to sell off housing association properties. We could divert precious resources from that silly scheme tomorrow and use it for an emergency programme to get the homeless off the streets before winter bites.

If the Conservative party was listening to my constituents, it would want to do something about the women born in the ’50s and diddled out of their pensions. It would own up to and put right the mess they have made of universal credit, and it would offer a targeted apprenticeship scheme to tackle stubborn unemployment that means that in constituencies such as Selly Oak unemployment is twice the national average. It would acknowledge the awful violence suffered by shopworkers, and in its approach to serious violence, it would bring in legislation that recognises just how seriously we regard an attack on any person, any worker, simply doing their job.

There is no shortage of things that need doing and no limit to the number of issues where this Parliament could make a difference, but that needs a Prime Minister and a Government who take Parliament seriously, who treat people seriously, and who are determined to tackle injustice and put things right. Sadly, we have a Prime Minister and a Government who seem to revel in creating injustice and care only about the rights that benefit their own. That is why the Queen’s Speech is wrong. That is why it is a phoney and that is why it is a fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It would, to be fair, go some way to doing that: if the Government were willing to say, “If there is a new standard of proof to be able to cast your vote, we will provide that free of charge to every citizen in this country before this measure comes into effect,” that would allay some of my concerns, but of course the cost of that would be significant and I have not heard anything mentioned that suggests that is possible.

[Steve McCabe]

It would be a national ID scheme.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It would in effect be a national ID scheme, as my hon. Friend says, and that in itself has other implications. That is why the Electoral Reform Society has called this measure “dangerous, misguided and undemocratic.”

Occurrences of election fraud are, thankfully, very rare in the UK and, where they have occurred, they have been disproportionately Conservative party scandals, but that is not the point: the fact is that no one should be seeking to import the voter suppression tactics of the Republican party in the US. Yet it seems that, having failed to gerrymander the constituency boundaries in the last Parliament, this time the Conservatives are going to go straight to gerrymandering the electorate directly. I say to all fair-minded people: please think again.

It is uncertain whether this Queen’s Speech actually has a majority in Parliament. It is very hard to predict the future and perhaps we will know more about where Brexit is at after this weekend’s sitting, but I believe this country is crying out for a more ambitious agenda, one that rebuilds the basic sense of equity and national solidarity that all successful nations need. That is what my constituents tell me they want and that would truly be a Queen’s Speech worthy of the name.

EU Settlement Scheme: Looked-after Children and Care Leavers

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the EU Settlement Scheme and looked-after children and care leavers.

Good morning, Mr Bone. It is nice to be back and a pleasure to see you in the Chair. May I take this opportunity also to welcome the Minister to her post?

I want to raise today an issue that has the potential to become a serious immigration problem, but one that there is still plenty of time to avoid. The EU settlement scheme is the largest registration programme that the UK has ever known and poses the challenge of regularising the status of about 3.7 million people, including about 700,000 children, 74,000 of whom live in the west midlands.

The quarterly EU settlement scheme statistics show that only 12% of the applications to the scheme received by the end of June 2019 came from children under 16. I am sure that we all want to prevent vulnerable children from falling foul of problems associated with these plans as we prepare to leave the EU. I believe that there is significant cross-party support in both Houses on this issue, and I hope that today the Minister can provide some reassurance.

The Government have estimated that there are currently about 5,000 EU children in the British care system and perhaps a further 4,000 care leavers across the UK. We do not know the exact figure, because local authorities do not record that information, so I am relying on Government estimates. The figure does not include children classified as “in need” and therefore in receipt of considerable support from children’s services, but where the Department has not assumed parental rights. The Minister will be aware, I am sure, that there is quite a fine distinction between a child in need and therefore in informal care and a child in the formal system. It really relies on the point at which intervention is required. Therefore, I would submit that all these children need to be registered.

If previous registration is anything to judge by, it seems impossible to believe that 100% registration can ever be achieved. If just 15% of children are not properly registered, we may find ourselves doubling the number of undocumented children in this country. Recent pilot exercises suggest that there will be significant problems for local authorities in obtaining critical documentation such as birth certificates.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong case on why we need to address this issue. I speak as the MP for one of the pilot areas, in Waltham Forest. One challenge was simply getting hold of documentation, because embassies will not release documentation to a child; they will release it to a parent, but of course if the child is in care, the relationship with their parent is strained. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that we need a specific scheme and way of dealing with children in care who are EU citizens, if Brexit is to go ahead?

[Steve McCabe]

I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend has raised. That was part of the purpose of calling this debate: I do not think that the scheme as currently designed will cope with these difficulties. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the pilots demonstrated the difficulties of obtaining documentation—particularly birth certificates, on which the Home Office puts a very high premium when determining these cases. Like her, I am concerned that many children and young people will not be able to access these documents and, as a result, will be wrongly denied settled status.

The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), did indicate that the Home Office planned to show a degree of leniency in this respect, but unfortunately she did not spell out what she had in mind. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to enlighten us today. No doubt she will tell us that in these cases the children will be eligible for pre-settled status, but what that actually means is that they will get temporary rights and be denied their legitimate legal rights. That is why there is a problem and why we are raising it. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities are protected and that children for whom the state is responsible receive the highest levels of protection.

It seems to me that the issue is not just documentation; there are several challenges with the proposals. It is extremely doubtful that social workers will have the time, expertise or legal knowledge to register these children.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. His comments raise a number of questions. The first is the final status of these children—ultimately—because we have seen problems in that regard before, but in addition, because of a lack of social workers, it will always be difficult for local authorities to get the accurate documentation that is needed. The lack of social workers and of funding for local authorities has been raised many times in the House. Does my hon. Friend think it is about time that central Government showed a bit of humanity and did something about that?

[Steve McCabe]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I hope that, in the course of this debate, it will be possible to demonstrate that this is not scaremongering, that these are real issues and that there are solutions, but that does require the Government to recognise the problems that my hon. Friend has raised and to agree to act on them.

As I was saying, it seems unlikely that social workers will have the time, expertise or legal knowledge to deal with these issues, particularly if they begin to encounter problems in the process. The Children’s Society, along with other charities, has repeatedly highlighted the problems that this group of children is facing and the challenges that exist in trying to process an EUSS application. There is no evidence that I am aware of that additional support will be made available to local authorities—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) raises.

During the pilot phase, every application that Coram Children’s Legal Centre made on behalf of a child in care or a care leaver included detailed nationality advice—nationality advice that requires expert legal advice and understanding—and social workers had to be supported at each stage during the process. That is the evidence from the pilots.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the case that he is making. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has been working with directors of children’s services in Greater Manchester to try to offer the support to which my hon. Friend refers. Does he agree with me that we urgently need the Government to get the resolution currently before the House on extending legal aid to children in immigration cases through the House and on to the statute book? If the Government did that, social workers would be absolutely clear that legal aid was available for these cases and that they would not have to rely just on the chances of getting exceptional case funding.

[Steve McCabe]

My understanding is that that is an outstanding Government promise; as my hon. Friend says, there is a resolution to that effect. If there are any plans to curtail the time that we will spend here in the coming days, one good use of the time here would be in dealing with this simple issue. That would certainly raise the prospects of our being able to deal with the whole issue in a much more satisfactory manner, and I would certainly support it.

The current guidance states that local authorities can make applications on behalf of children where they have full parental responsibility, but, as I mentioned earlier, for care leavers or children in care under a section 20 order they are instructed simply to raise awareness or to signpost those young people to the scheme. Children in care under section 20 orders include children with disabilities, the children of prisoners, children involved in the criminal justice system and victims of child trafficking. It seems unrealistic to think that those children will be able to gather the correct documentation, make the application for themselves and challenge any incorrect decision the Home Office might arrive at.

Looked-after children are starkly over-represented in the criminal justice system, as I am sure the Minister knows. Around half of children currently in custody in England and Wales have been in care at some point. The Government have provided no clarity as to how these children will be treated when they apply for the scheme and, if they are offending, whether that will be used against them, as in the adult scheme. I raise that point because in this country we normally take the view that juvenile criminal behaviour should be treated differently from adult criminal behaviour.

Many looked-after children and care leavers may be eligible for British citizenship, but the social worker will need to know the law in order to recognise that. Local authorities would have to pay the application fee, which is currently £1,012 per child. That is a significant disincentive for cash-strapped local authorities. As I said earlier, we are working on estimates because local authorities do not record EU nationals who are in their care or classed as children in need, but the Government estimate that around 5,000 EU children are currently in care, and there are perhaps a further 4,000 care leavers across the UK, who need to be registered. At the present time, it is virtually impossible to estimate the number of children in need, which is a broader group.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend raised the important issue of citizenship fees. I hope the Minister has seen the fantastic work done by Citizens UK, particularly Anne-Marie Canning, who is my constituent in Walthamstow. We deal very closely with those children and having documentation opens up doors for some of them, but I am worried about cases where they do not have it.

If we have done the right thing as corporate parents, helped these children to achieve new goals and dealt with some of the damage that led to them being in care, then watching them be denied access to university or further education colleges because they cannot sort out their status would be a horrific blow. These are some of the most vulnerable children in our country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just these children’s status, but their future, and that is why it is so important that the Government recognise that this particular group of vulnerable young people needs a specific scheme?

[Steve McCabe]

That is absolutely the point. If we do not deal with this now, there will be a whole host of young people wandering around this country, sleeping on streets and unable to get jobs or to travel. That is what we will be subjecting them to for the next few years. That is why it is important that we get on top of this and deal with it now.

I checked the figures kept by Birmingham Children’s Trust. It has around 50 children whom it believes are EU citizens and will need to apply for some kind of settled status. It also has about 24 care leavers, who also fall into that category. However, at this point, the trust has not made any applications and it was not entirely clear about how the process should operate. That is in the second largest city in the country; if that trust is not sure how to operate the scheme, what will happen elsewhere?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) indicated, there are many future problems to consider, but there will also be some simple problems for children in the care system in the months ahead. Will they be able to go on school trips abroad with their peers after 31 October, or will they be stigmatised and refused that opportunity because they will not have access to proper travel rights? As my hon. Friend asked, what will happen to them when they are seeking housing, benefits and other support? They will be denied that support. We see enough problems on our streets at the present time; we certainly do not need to add to them by ignoring children for whose care we have taken responsibility. That seems the worst possible thing that any group of MPs could do.

The simplest and most cost-effective solution to these problems would be to grant automatic settled status to all looked-after children and care leavers. I do not think the number is so massive that it would impose great strains on the immigration system. However, it would tidy up one straightforward issue with one straightforward group of children. At the very least, the Government ought to extend the deadline for applying for the settled status scheme until we have really understood how some of these issues will operate in practice and what kinds of problems will arise.

If the Home Office is not willing to make changes of that order itself, it needs to instruct all local authorities to ensure that all eligible looked-after children are supported to make an application, not just children under a section 31 care order. If the Home Office is really serious about making this work, it will not leave those children exposed to such risks.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, the Government urgently need to bring forward parliamentary time for the amendment allowing looked-after children to have access to legal aid. That seems to be essential, if there is to be any sincerity to this process. The Government must communicate to all local authorities exactly how this legal aid will be accessed. It is not enough to place an obligation on the local authorities and then leave them with all the difficulties—we have seen that happen all too often in recent times; it is not good enough. The Home Office should also consider waiving the fee for citizenship applications for those children who qualify. As I said, the current fee is £1,012. That is a disincentive to local authorities. If the children are eligible and already in care, we should agree to waive that fee.

This issue has all the signs of a disaster in the making. Of all the people we are concerned about, I cannot believe that I am here talking about children in the care system—we say that we will look after and protect them, and give them a better chance in the future. This has all the makings of a disaster, but it is a disaster that could be avoided. If the Minister will agree to meet with those of us working on the issue and the relevant organisations, which have the knowledge and the advice, there is still time to stop it from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy]

The scheme is not designed to require a lawyer or legal advice, so it is simple to use. I recognise that there might be complications in some of the cases involving vulnerable and non-EEA dependents. However, the fact that more than one third of the eligible people have already signed up in six months is a testament to its design as a simple system.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She might be right to say that the overall scheme was designed not to require great legal expertise, but the evidence of the Coram pilot shows that that is exactly what was required for the group of children that this debate is about. Surely that is the point she needs to address.

[Seema Kennedy]

On the Coram report and the Department’s contact with all the important groups that assist vulnerable people, guidance has been published. Most importantly, guidance is being refreshed—this debate is part of that, to ensure the guidance is relevant. There has been a series of teleconferences for social workers and local authority staff, and they will continue monthly until next March. There is a designated telephone number for local authorities to call the Settlement Resolution Centre.

I will touch on an important issue that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned, namely legal aid. She has quite rightly mentioned the fact that the order has not been debated, and I will speak urgently to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice in order to bring that forward. Until then, applicants can apply through the exceptional case funding scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for her comments. I hope she will appreciate, as I said at the outset, that this is a cross-party matter. The hon. Members raising it are doing so not because of our views on Brexit, but because of the risk to this particular group of children. I ask her to focus on that. Although I recognise that the intention is not to make the scheme complicated, I implore her to look again at some of the legal complexities that local authorities are raising, because they look as if they will adversely impact on her good intentions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the EU Settlement Scheme and looked-after children and care leavers.

Retail Crime

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful and comprehensive opening speech. Not surprisingly, much of what I say will echo comments that have already been made. I thank members of the all-party group on retail crime and its former chair, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who have done so much to raise awareness of the issue both in Parliament and elsewhere.

In my constituency of Selly Oak, shops lost more than £214,000 last year because of shoplifting and other criminal acts. As we have heard, the knock-on effect is equivalent to a tax of about 7% on every consumer transaction. Much harder to calculate, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) indicated, is the impact on owners, family members and staff who are threatened, intimidated and subjected to frequent violent assaults, including murder. Tragically, we recently had the murder of Ravi Katharkamar in Pinner, north-west London—a hard-working family man trying to go about his business.

We know that there were at least 10,000 attacks on shop workers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn cited a higher figure from the British retail crime survey, which suggested that one of the issues is how the crime is identified and recorded. As with a number of offences, there is always some dispute about how a crime is recorded and therefore how much certainty we can have about the volume of particular crimes. As has been said, many of the perpetrators are repeat offenders, and perhaps in some cases regular offenders. They tend to target high-value items or items that are easily disposed of. It is a growing problem. The Home Office’s commercial victimisation survey reported that such crimes in the retail and wholesale sector had doubled between 2016 and 2017, and the same study also revealed at least half a million assaults and threats against retail staff—about 250 a day.

Part of the problem, as we have heard, is overstretched police services, which have substantially fewer resources. In the west midlands alone, we have seen the loss of 2,000 officers since 2010 and cuts to the budget of about £175 million. Our own chief constable has publicly admitted that his force can no longer cope with the range of demands made on it. Against such a background, we need a new approach to the issue of retail crime.

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn that, first, we have to recognise the scale of the problem, its financial impact on consumers and businesses, and its effect on ordinary people just trying to go about their business, earn a living and provide a service. There are about 46,000 convenience stores in the UK, of which 72% are operated by independent retailers or as part of a symbol group such as Spar, Nisa or Costcutter. They provide flexible employment for more than 365,000 people and 24% of shop owners work more than 70 hours per week. It is not easy, and they deserve a better deal.

On recognition, we need an agreed definition of business crime, so that all police forces record such crime to the same agreed standard. My right hon. Friend referred to the retail crime survey, which reported something like 3.5 million incidents of retail crime in 2017. At the same time, official statistics recorded only 382,000 incidents of shoplifting, which implies that there is massive under-reporting of the crime or that there is a recording issue.

Interestingly, if we add the definition of robbery, we get nearly 12,500 further incidents per year, and if we add the definition of burglary, we come up with another 7,000. There is an argument for agreeing a common definition that would allow us to get a better grip on what is happening. That would go a long way to identifying the real scale of the problem and might end the false debate about whether there are significant regional variations, which is not entirely convincing—it may be more of a recording issue.

The fact that the police will not investigate shop thefts with a value of less than £200 is virtually an incentive to offend. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, because of stretched police resources and different ways of dealing with things, I understand how we have ended up in the situation where those who are caught with stolen goods worth less than £200 are fined and allowed to pay by post, but frankly that reduces it to the status of a parking offence. Psychologically, it decriminalises the activity, which is why people think it is not as serious as it genuinely is. His call for a review is essential in the face of the growing crime levels.

For years, before I came to this place, I worked with young offenders, and I spent a lot of my life arguing for out-of-court disposals and community disposals, but the problem with out-of-court disposals in this area is that offenders are repeatedly issued with cautions, conditional discharges and small fines for committing almost identical crimes, so it has no impact. We should at least introduce proper banning orders, so that people who commit repeat offences in that way are banned from specific shops or retail areas. We have to find a way to curb the repetition of the activity.

Where those who are engaged in these offences have obvious addiction problems, we have to place more emphasis on that and make more effort to deal with the addiction issue. My right hon. Friend referred to the reduction in the numbers from the last year of the Labour Government to last year. There must be pressure on the courts to recognise that that is a problem and to ensure that the sentence sets out to tackle the addiction issue. A disposal that pushes that to one side is of little value and, again, is an incentive to repeat that behaviour.

Those who threaten, intimidate and commit violent attacks on shop workers should be charged with an aggravated offence. There should be an additional penalty and it should be made abundantly clear that they are not able to get away with that. My right hon. Friend mentioned the request by the Association of Convenience Stores for a pledge from police and crime commissioners. Next year, we have an election for the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands—in fact, I think that there are elections in other parts of the country as well. I will certainly demand such a pledge from all candidates in the west midlands election, and will encourage all shop owners in my constituency to do the same. We want a clear and unequivocal commitment to prioritising the tackling of retail crime and violence against shop workers.

I have a pretty good relationship with the current police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, who is doing a good job. I looked at the police and crime plan for 2016 to 2020 while I was thinking about this debate. It is quite an impressive document of 40 pages, which deals with all sorts of important issues—road traffic injuries, mental health, young people and animal cruelty—but I could not find a single reference to retail crime, shoplifting or violence against shop workers. To be fair, page 6 refers to

“working with companies and other partners to reduce overall business crime”,

and on page 27 there is a section on supporting economic development, which also refers to working with companies.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said that 25 of the commissioners have not signed up to the pledge. The same ACS survey shows that only nine of 40 police and crime plans explicitly refer to retail or business crime. That is simply not good enough. We want a pledge from all candidates at the next election that if they win, the plan will contain a section about tackling retail crime and shop worker violence. It should detail what they will do to address the issue.

I, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that the Minister has indicated her interest in this subject and her determination to improve the situation, for which I thank her. Ideally, we would see the production of a new retail crime prevention strategy, drawn up in conjunction with the sector. We need a strategy that expands on who has responsibility and what items are required to crack down on crime. We have heard about some of the good initiatives, such as that in Manchester and those of USDAW, ACS and the Central England Co-operative, which I understand is seeking a meeting with the Mayor of the West Midlands combined authority, Andy Street. If he is listening, he has an opportunity to get in on the act and help out.

We need a strategy that expands on who has responsibility for what and itemises the steps that are required to crack down on crime. I would like to see a process in which MPs get a monthly or bi-monthly constituency-level report that shows the hotspots and trends, so that there is a constant focus on taking action and utilising the measures that prove successful.

As we have heard, we must do more to help both smaller and independent stores, and encourage the Government to look at additional ways of helping to fund new and better security equipment for smaller retailers. There is a tendency to view the proceeds of crime funds as the answer to everything these days, but that money is derived from the actions of criminals, so maybe that is an area from which we could draw a little additional funding to support smaller retailers. I understand that they already spend something like £5 million of their own money on such measures. That is quite a lot for the owners of small shops, many of whom barely scrape a living—they are not rich people in any sense. We need these businesses; they provide crucial services. These people work very long hours and deserve our support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

My intention is to publish it in the autumn. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to spread the word through their networks and encourage local shopkeepers to contribute to the consultation, because the richer the tapestry of evidence that we have, the better we will be able to respond.

The call for evidence is supported by a wider package of measures. The Home Office is providing £50,000 of funding for a targeted communication campaign, led by the Association of Convenience Stores, to raise awareness of the existing legislation to protect shop workers. We have published guidance on gov.uk about the use of impact statements for business, which provide victims with the opportunity to tell the courts about the impact a crime has had on their business. From my experience of working in the criminal courts, I know that those statements can make a huge difference and have a real impact on judges as they are considering how best to sentence offenders.

We have also worked with the police to develop guidance for staff and retailers to use when reporting emergency and violent incidents. As I say, I encourage everyone with an interest to respond to the call for evidence, including shop staff who have been directly affected by violence and abuse at work.

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who is sadly no longer in his place—he may be in the main Chamber—made a wider point about courtesy and the use of language. I am sure that we all consider that an important point that we will encourage people to remember as they visit our shops. Shop workers deserve politeness and courtesy, as does anyone else in this world. The example was given of an item of stock running low, which can be frustrating, but we should try to behave with courtesy.

I will quickly touch on the issue of police funding, which a couple of hon. Members raised. It has largely been a debate of great collaboration and agreement, but I must point out that police funding will increase by more than £1 billion in 2019-20, including, with the help of council tax, extra funding for pension costs and the serious violence fund. The Home Secretary has also stated that he will prioritise police funding at the next spending review.

[Steve McCabe]

Does the Minister accept that in the west midlands, the increase in the central grant for police funding will be entirely eaten up by dealing with the pension funds? That will mean that the same consumers who are paying the 7% tax on crime will also pay the council tax for any improvement in their policing position. In the west midlands, that is a standstill position.

[Victoria Atkins]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given specific money to deal with the increase in pensions. I think he would agree that it is important to make sure that our police officers have their pension rights adhered to and honoured.

Furthermore, in the west midlands, we recently had a meeting with the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable to talk about measures to tackle serious violence, which is a particular problem. I was therefore delighted when the Chancellor granted an extra £100 million to deal specifically with serious violence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s area will benefit from some of that.

I am delighted that the new hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) joined us. I was most interested to hear her intervention. I hope she will urge her police and crime commissioner to spend some of his reserves, which stood at £56 million as of March last year, because that or just a bit of it could go some distance. I am sure she will do that as a good new Member of the House of Commons.

The national business crime centre is a significant step in tackling business crime more generally. We recognise the importance of ensuring a co-ordinated response to crimes against businesses. That is why we have supported the national business crime centre, which launched in October 2017 with the support of Home Office funding through the police transformation fund. The centre provides information for police forces and businesses, offers a targeted alert service to support businesses nationally and facilitates national consistency in the management of business crime. It has proved to be a valuable resource for all businesses, not just retailers, and continues to provide essential guidance and support nationally. The resources include advice, examples of things that retailers can do to prevent crimes and training for staff to defuse potentially violent situations to help protect businesses, staff and customers alike. I urge Members to see whether the centre can be of assistance to shops and businesses in their local areas. In addition, the Home Office runs its commercial victimisation survey, which is an important measure of business crime as well.

One of the six points that the right hon. Member for Delyn made was about gathering good practice. There is a great deal of good practice already in the system. For example, many business crime reduction partnerships operate across England and Wales and bring significant benefit to their members, the wider community and the police. We have heard about other schemes, such as Pubwatch and Shopwatch, which the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) mentioned. There is also BusinessWatch and Radio Link, which I saw for myself in the constituency of Erewash. I liken such schemes to a form of vaccination. If every shop in the local area participates, the whole community is strengthened and empowered through the scheme’s operation, but if one or two businesses do not sign up, it weakens the overall strength of the community response to these crimes. We are keen to encourage such schemes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak challenged police and crime commissioners to make retail crime a priority. I agree with him; the point of police and crime commissioners is to set local policing priorities. I encourage Members to raise the issue with their PCCs.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the importance of the response of local businesses. Indeed, there is lots of good practice from individual businesses that shows a very positive impact, such as the use of CCTV, which he rightly mentioned. It is much cheaper than it used to be. One plea to everyone who uses CCTV is to maintain it and replace the tapes. I know that seems a small, practical point, but regrettably investigations sometimes show that the CCTV evidence is not there because the machines have not been kept up to date. As long as businesses are able to do that, it is of real benefit. Some stores have invested in body-worn cameras to help to reduce levels of violence and abuse towards staff.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made a point about the future high streets fund, which is £675 million to support local areas in England to invest in town centre infrastructure and to support redevelopment. He made an interesting point about whether the fund could be used to help with security, and I am happy to look into that for him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) is sitting behind me. She takes a keen interest in these issues, but because of her commitments cannot contribute verbally to the debate. She has reminded me that we have business improvement districts, which are business-led partnerships created through a ballot process to deliver additional services to local business. Improvements may include extra safety and security. In Chichester, all retail and other businesses contribute a 1% levy, and some of that money is used to fund walkie-talkies to act as a security system for support for workers. There are many examples out there of interesting schemes. They may differ in their applicability to different areas, but there are schemes out there that may help, if Members are interested.

The right hon. Member for Delyn rightly raised the issue of drugs and alcohol, as did other Members. We know that drugs can devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities. Our approach to drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug misuse in our communities and support people through treatment and recovery. Although drug misuse is at similar levels to a decade ago, we are absolutely committed to reducing it and the harm it causes. We have done that through, for example, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Since it came into force, more than 300 retailers across the UK have either closed down or are no longer selling psychoactive substances. That has helped to remove the presence of such substances from our high streets. Of course, there is more to do. Our drugs strategy sets out our approach, bringing together the police, the health community and global partners to tackle the illicit drugs trade, protect the most vulnerable and help those with a drug dependency to recover and turn their lives around.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Northampton is of course a very good example of where the emergency services work together extremely well, not just to find savings in how taxpayers’ money can be deployed in the most efficient way but in delivering a better service to the public. Armed with that evidence, we will continue down that path.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the Minister want to take this opportunity to condemn the bizarre events in the west midlands, where we have a Tory councillor and a member of the Mayor’s staff committing identity fraud in order to influence the outcome of the police and crime commissioner consultation? Surely the police are entitled to a higher standard of probity than that.

[Mr Hurd]

I would have thought that a Member of Parliament of the hon. Gentleman’s experience would take a little bit more care with his words in this place, because he will know that any wrongdoing has been denied and that this is the subject of an independent investigation at this moment in time. The Government support the second devolution deal for the west midlands, and that includes incorporating the role and powers of the PCC in the mayoralty as has been done in London and Manchester.

Police Grant Report

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of her constituents in Derbyshire.

The West Midlands police and crime commissioner says publicly what many PCCs say privately—that this Government funding does not come anywhere near to covering what the force requires just to stand still.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

On that point, does my right hon. Friend think that it is the outspoken nature of the police and crime commissioner’s comments that has led to the Home Secretary trying to abolish his job?

[Ms Abbott]

I would never accuse the Home Secretary of being so petty. This is what the West Midlands police and crime commissioner said:

“This government funding does not come anywhere near to covering what the force requires…£25.6m is needed to cover extra pension costs, government-set pay increases and rising fuel costs this year.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I shall be voting against inadequate Government funding tonight. It is as simple as that, no matter how Conservative Members try to spin or twist it.

Let me give the House a snapshot of the events dealt with by West Midlands police in the 72 hours leading up to New Year’s eve. There was a ram raid at the Santander bank in Kings Heath, where the security guard was attacked with an axe. A pedestrian was killed in Highgate by a drunk driver. There was a shooting in Bristol Street, and an extremely serious and vicious assault on a woman in Halesowen. A 34-year-old man was stabbed to death. There was a carjacking in Handsworth, with the stabbed victim left in the road, and a 16-year-old boy was stabbed in Kingstanding. All those major events occurred alongside the normal everyday demands of policing. Our police are at breaking point.

Birmingham is the largest and most populated city outside London. Our crime figures have risen by more than 30% in the last three years, while charging is down by 26%. The level of violent crime in Birmingham is 40% higher than the national average, and the level of vehicle crime is the fourth highest in the country. No wonder people are fearful.

When Labour was last in power, we delivered a neighbourhood policing team in every area. Such an approach not only delivers visible policing, but provides a network of intelligence and fosters better community relations. When Labour left office, there were 143,000 police officers and nearly 80,000 police community support officers. Now neighbourhood policing is almost a nostalgia item. The teams that remain are stretched over areas three or four times the size of their original patch, and the West Midlands chief constable has warned that criminals know just how stretched his force is. The Home Affairs Committee warned that without extra funding, the police will be unable to fulfil their basic duties.

The chief constable blames a shortage of resources when his 999 response times are criticised. The reality is that 70% of 101 calls are now responded to by telephone rather than a visit. Suspects who could be picked up are not, and jobs that are graded as not immediately important are delayed, sometimes for days or weeks. If someone is assaulted and manages to call the police during the assault, an immediate response is required, but if the person gets away and instantly gives a description of the thief who still has their bag or wallet, the odds are that the call will be downgraded. As the chief constable puts it,

“How can a force that’s rated one of the most efficient in the country not get to 30% of emergency calls on time if it’s not a resource problem?”

He has lost 24% of his officers since 2010, so I think he has a point.

West Midlands police relies on central Government for 83% of its funding. That is why the unfair application of the formula, the extent of the cuts and an over-reliance on the council tax precept has such a pernicious effect on us. This settlement is based on council tax rising by up to £24 a year. I suppose that that is marginally better than the £50 increase that the Government originally planned, but it still means that people pay more, and that £24 only just covers inflation, resulting in a standstill budget.

We heard earlier from the Home Secretary that this is the first above-inflation increase in nine years. However, Ministers are not so keen to talk about where the grant goes: £7 million is pension grant; and the other £8.9 million has to cover pay rises from this year and last year, and existing pension arrangements. The increased contributions to the police pension scheme for West Midlands are now £15.4 million a year. I defy anyone to make those figures add up to extra money for policing.

Recently the Home Secretary, and even the Tory Mayor of the west midlands, admitted that our police are underfunded. After eight years of denial, the Home Secretary told “Birmingham Live” in September that “resources are an issue” and that he would push the Chancellor for more. It is a pity he did not push a bit harder. The Mayor acknowledged that

“the settlement for the West Midlands has been less favourable than for other areas.”

The reality is that the funding package is simply not enough to compensate for the damage that has been done, and our police will continue to struggle. They face changes in the nature and pattern of crime, and are expected to cope with falling numbers, outdated technology and fragmented leadership.

To compound it all, the Government now plan to impose another upheaval on the second largest force in the country by abolishing the post of police and crime commissioner just as it has begun to bed in, and replacing it with our hapless Mayor, who already has his hands full with rough sleepers, unemployment, skills shortages and transport issues. The last thing we need is a part-time commissioner borrowing from the police budget to finance his other pet schemes.

Immigration Detention: Shaw Review

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am happy to write the hon. Lady about the issue that she raises, but I am afraid that it has nothing to do with the statement that I made today.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. He refers to Stephen Shaw’s focus on the need for greater transparency and promises to publish more data. I was surprised to discover in an answer to a parliamentary question in May this year that the Department does not collect data on people who are re-detained, so we have no information at all about how many people may be re-detained within one month or six months of their initial period of detention. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be really useful to have that information so that we have a much clearer picture of what is happening?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, following on from my point about transparency and Mr Shaw’s point in his report. I hope that he welcomes some of the measures that I announced today. I will take a closer look at his point regarding data on re-detention.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Every week, the United States and our European allies share evidence and intelligence that keep us safe. They are our friends in this ever-unstable world. It is incredibly important that we stay close to all our allies and continue in partnership both to prosecute people where they pose a threat—if it is here, then here, but if it is not, elsewhere, in the countries that share our values—and to share intelligence in order to make sure that all of us keep safe.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the case of Abu Qatada, the Prime Minister, in her former guise, secured a special guarantee that evidence gathered through torture would not be used against him. Whatever these people are accused of, will the Minister give the House an assurance that there are the same guarantees for Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh?

[Mr Wallace]

On the basis of all the evidence that the United Kingdom holds, we would not hold evidence that we knew resulted directly or indirectly from torture; nor would we share that evidence if we had it.

Immigration Rules: Paragraph 322(5)

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).

I will concentrate on one case—that of my constituent, Mr Iftikhar Ahmad—although there are many others. He has run a business in this country that employs other people since 2011. He is also a victim of the Prime Minister’s hostile environment. I do not know what it says about the state of our country that we have ended up with a provision that was designed to protect us from terrorism being used to pick on people for minor tax difficulties, but it does not make it sound to me like the sort of place anyone would particularly want to live.

The Minister must know perfectly well that whenever MPs raise this issue, the replies they get are wholly inadequate. We get a cut-and-paste letter with a standard stamp on it, which tells us that nobody bothered to read our letter and that there is absolutely no prospect of our being told when the matter might be dealt with. I do not blame the Minister for the hostile environment—the Prime Minister created that state of affairs when she was at the Home Office—and I know that since this issue got a bit of attention in the press, the Government have announced that it is no longer their policy. I was delighted to hear that.

Despite the limited time, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us honestly what happened. She is the Minister left holding the baby. What happened? How did we end up in this state of affairs? Will she give us a clue about what she thinks is the number of people affected? I certainly have reason to believe it is well over 1,000. The number of people affected by Windrush started small, but we suddenly discovered it was much bigger. How many lives like the ones we have heard about are being wrecked as a result of this situation, and what will she do for people such as Mr Ahmad, his wife and his three children? He cannot provide for them anymore. Just like everybody else who is affected, he has almost spent his life savings—savings he accumulated through his hard work in this country, while he was paying taxes and helping the rest of us. He is almost spent up. Will the Minister give him a chance to work while the review is concluded?

Police Station Closures: Solihull and West Midlands

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Julian Knight]

The £9.5 million is a significant sum in that respect; I will move on to where, specifically, I think the money should come from, in terms of the police and crime commissioner.

Devolution does not mean leaving each region simply to sink or swim on its own. At Westminster, we help to oversee the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK. I was therefore pleased that the Government recently announced hundreds of millions of pounds in extra cash for policing, including a £9.5 million boost for the West Midlands police, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has just referred to. I was confident, along with many of my constituents, that that had put our vital police services on a secure footing, so hon. Members can imagine my shock when I learned that the commissioner plans to close Solihull police station and many police stations across the west midlands.

Let us be clear: there is no good financial case for this closure. According to the press, Mr Jamieson is sitting on a £100 million reserve. On top of that, he recently spent an extra £10 million on non-frontline staff, many of whom do very valuable work but cannot substitute a strong, local police presence. In such circumstances, extra cuts to frontline services are completely non-justifiable. We must not underestimate the significance of this: until recently, our town had two proper community police stations.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I want to ask about the £10 million for non-frontline staff. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are talking about fraud investigators, child abuse investigators, 999 call handlers and forensic scientists? Does he think that getting rid of those will help to drive crime down or up?

[Julian Knight]

Of course, I recognise that the non-frontline staff do very valuable work. However, as I will explain shortly, the police and crime commissioner cannot say that his cuts will make a substantive difference either to frontline services or to these non-frontline staff.

In my view, what Mr Jamieson has done is a straightforward breach of trust. When Shirley police station closed its doors in 2015, local residents were reassured that the Solihull branch offered a long-term future for a properly resourced local police presence. Now, less than three years later, it is to go, too. Instead of the Solihull branch, the commissioner proposes to have a front desk somewhere in the borough, but even though the consultation on that proposal is under way, we have not been told where that will be or what precisely it will comprise. Before Solihull police station is closed, I strongly believe that local residents have a right to know exactly what will replace it. At present, they are simply being told to trust Mr Jamieson—as I have already explained, they have no reason to do that.

Worse, research by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is here today to show her strength of feeling and support—as a Whip she is not permitted to speak—raises serious doubts about the extent to which the money raised from the sale of our police station can be redirected to frontline staff. According to the Library, police and crime commissioners are allowed to move funds from their capital to their revenue accounts only in very limited circumstances—primarily to deliver structural changes and to unlock long-term savings.

My constituents deserve to know whether—and how—Mr Jamieson actually intends to use the sale to boost local policing, as I have certainly heard nothing about new capital projects in Solihull or in any of the constituencies of my hon. Friends. It will not do for our police station to be sold to finance new programmes in other parts of the west midlands. My constituents should be given clear assurances that any revenue savings made by closing the station will be spent to boost local police services, and that there is not carte blanche to redirect them all over the place.

Not that local residents have had much of an opportunity to have their say—stakeholders have been offered only 18 working days to respond to the consultation, and originally no point of contact at all was provided for the general public. Only after a lot of chasing by my office was an email address finally provided for the public. Other concerned MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and I were not even given the courtesy of a call before the details were released to the press. My colleagues and I find that the commissioner is growing ever more autocratic in his dealings with us and our communities, issuing diktats from the centre against the will of local residents.

Solihull is a large town with a distinct character. Residents expect to see that fact reflected in their public services. Local Conservatives and I fought hard over the past few years to secure a devolution deal for the west midlands that brought power down from Westminster, while protecting the authority and independence of our local council. Decisions such as these will only confirm many of my constituents’ worst fears about how communities like Solihull risk getting short-changed by regional institutions that focus too heavily on major urban centres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. There are mixed views about the value of police stations. Paul Kohler, a London university lecturer who was subject to a savage beating when a gang broke into his home, has stated that he is still alive only because of the rapid response from the police station, which is 300 yards from his home in Wimbledon. It is pretty understandable that someone who has had that horrendous experience takes that view. However, my neighbours live about 3.2 miles from the nearest police station, so they could not possibly benefit similarly. The current Met commissioner, Cressida Dick, stated that she believes having police out on the streets is the best guarantee of a rapid response.

What we know about the west midlands is that the latest settlement means a real-terms cut. Even after we increase the precept for some of the poorest families, we are left with a £12.5 million gap. Forcing us to rely on the precept to fund policing means that we end up with less than Hampshire, despite its smaller population and lower levels of crime.

“Closure of police stations” is not always accurate as a description. In some situations, it refers to the closure of public desks rather than an actual facility. To return to the plans for the west midlands, I understand that only two of the 24 buildings for closure are police stations open to the public. As we have heard, the purpose is to save £5 million a year in order to protect 100 police officer posts. Given that we now have 2,000 fewer officers than in 2010, I am anxious not to see any further loss of personnel.

There are currently 10 publicly accessible front desks across the west midlands, and the proposals set out to retain 10 publicly accessible front desks. We must bear it in mind that some 361 police stations closed between 2010 and 2012. The police, to be fair, point out the cost of keeping such buildings open and the often low level of usage by the public.

Back in 2012, a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary warned that 264 police stations would close to the public over a three-year period, as chief constables attempted to balance the books. The then Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), responded by saying that what mattered was that frontline policing was preserved. That same view was expressed three years later by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), then the Policing Minister. He said in a Westminster Hall debate in 2015 that it was not about buildings but about people. However, the Tory police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley threatened legal action against the Home Office over cuts to his budget in the same month of that year, because he said they would force him to close three police stations with the loss of 147 jobs.

When the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was Policing Minister, he considered the closure of police stations to be an operational matter for chief constables. And, of course, in a famous memory lapse, the former Mayor of London—now the Foreign Secretary —complained about the closure of a police station in his constituency, having forgotten that he had ordered the closure of 65 police stations.

Arguments about the closure of police stations are not new. The received wisdom of the Government to date is that it is an operational matter; that it is about putting police on the street rather than in offices and adapting to new ways of working. That is, it would appear, until we are talking about the west midlands and a Labour police and crime commissioner.

We should not be mourning the closure of police stations. The problem before the House is not local mismanagement but the culmination of a series of untenable cuts that started when the present occupant of 10 Downing Street was the Home Secretary and which continue today, destroying the capacity of our police to control the streets and protect the public from violent crime.

Police Grant Report

Lord McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I want to start, as the Minister did, by paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our police service. The counterpart to this debate took place a little under a year ago, and no one could have imagined the unspeakable series of attacks that would follow in 2017. Throughout, our police service officers have risen to the highest standards of bravery, dedication and duty, truly honouring the founding principles of policing in the process. Chief among that covenant is that our police service depends ultimately on public support. After a year in which we have seen officers run into danger to keep the public safe, the police can rarely have counted on such strong public support as they enjoy today.

But I know from speaking to those officers that they are tired of warm words, backed up with no action from politicians. Today they are under sustained pressure the like of which the service has rarely, if ever, encountered, and today we have heard that there is not to be a single extra penny from central Government for local police forces.

Before I go into the detail of the funding settlement before us, I want to deal with the demand that the Minister says he recognises the police are under. Between 2010 and 2017 the average number of 101 and 999 calls has rocketed; in South Yorkshire it has tripled. Just last year 999 calls increased by 15%. Forces such as the West Midlands police are receiving the number of calls on one day in June that they used to receive only on new year’s eve. In the last year overall crime has risen by 15%, the largest increase since records began, violent crime is up by 20%, robberies by 29% and sexual offences by 23%. Last year over 1.4 million more people than the year before experienced antisocial behaviour, while the number of orders handed out fell by a quarter. Yet those are only a tiny proportion of the issues our police have to deal with.

On becoming Home Secretary, the now Prime Minister told the police their only “mission” was

“to cut crime. No more, and no less”,

but 83% of calls to command and control centres are non-crime-related. They are calls associated with mental health—last year the Met took an average of one mental health call every five minutes—or with missing persons, a demand that has tripled for some forces over the last seven years. They are associated with a raft of vulnerabilities, because, as other services buckle, the police are relied upon more than ever as the social service of last resort.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the Minister has alleged, what Labour Members are doing today is standing up for their constituents and voting against cuts that are unsafe and putting our constituents at risk?

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Today we will be voting against a completely inappropriate police funding settlement that leaves our communities exposed and the public at risk.

On top of all the demand I have listed, there is the unprecedented terrorist threat our country now faces. It is frankly unbelievable that, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council has recognised, the report before us fails to meet those growing needs and exposes gaps in the protection of the public.

So we have no choice but to vote against the motion tonight. We do so for three key reasons. First, the report prescribes an eighth consecutive year of real-terms cuts in Home Office funding. Secondly, it pushes the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers, and the very areas that have seen the most substantial cuts will get the least, inevitably creating a lottery of winners and losers that has no place for public safety. Thirdly, it fails to meet the needs identified by police chiefs, first and foremost in the area of counter-terrorism but also in local policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I should say at the outset that I might have to leave before the end of the debate as I have to take the Chair in Westminster Hall.

As the Minister would not do so, let me begin by acknowledging that the cash freeze in this settlement is, when we take inflation into account, actually a real-terms cut for West Midlands police. That is what the Government are doing to policing in the west midlands. It is in addition to the 2,091 officers we have already lost and the £145 million that has been cut from the budget since this lot came to power.

The West Midlands police and crime panel has agreed to the commissioner’s request to add an extra £12 to the precept paid by already hard-pressed council tax payers—had it not, the situation would be even worse—but given the high number of band A and B properties in our area, the west midlands simply does not have the same revenue-raising capacity as places such as Surrey or Hampshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said. Hampshire’s population is almost 1 million smaller than that of the west midlands, but Hampshire will raise more through its precept, meaning it will experience budget growth as a result of the settlement, whereas even after a £12 council tax increase, West Midlands police will still be £12.5 million short of the money needed just to stand still.

Today’s settlement is a ministerial announcement of a further cut to policing for the people of the west midlands. It will mean fewer officers, even less neighbourhood policing, slower response times and the closure of 28 police stations. We have heard a lot of talk about reserves, so let me be clear: other than the basic requirements for insurance and emergencies, West Midland police’s reserves will be exhausted by 2020. We spent what was in the kitty on making up for the earlier cuts; there is no secret hoard at Lloyd House. Of course, the Government are quick to argue that they have given extra money for counter-terrorism, but the Minister needs to recognise that £47 million of the £50 million received by West Midlands police has already been spent. Such policing costs £100,000 a day when the threat level is critical, and neighbourhood policing, which is already virtually non-existent in many of the communities that I represent, ceases to function altogether.

Our chief constable says that given the challenges his force faces, he cannot understand why, as the largest force in the country apart from the Met, we are spending below the national average per capita on policing. Basically, there is not enough money to provide a properly resourced police service in the west midlands. The public can no longer expect police protection when they need it. The 101 phone service is a joke, routine burglaries do not get a response, the clear-up rate is falling and public confidence is at an all-time low.

Some 92% of my constituents who responded to my recent crime survey said that the Government’s reduction in the number of police officers had proved to be a false economy. Why will the Government not admit that they have got it wrong? How long will we have to put up with the “emperor’s new clothes” farce we witnessed at Prime Minister’s questions today? The Prime Minister must be the only person in this country who thinks that crime is falling, just as she was the only one who thought that stop-and-search powers were a bad idea. Well, try telling that to the parents of a knife crime victim.

The simple truth is that we cannot rely on the Government to keep dangerous rapists and violent criminals in prison after they are caught. We cannot rely on them to provide a properly resourced probation service to supervise criminals on the outside, and now we cannot rely on them to provide enough money to police our towns and cities. Their record is one of total failure. The Minister should be apologising; he should be ashamed of himself.