Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

Those reports are somewhat surprising, are they not? What I will say, for the benefit of the House, is that I am very clear about the fact that the law should be upheld, and that individuals who have no right to be in our country should be removed. People should not be obstructing work that is in the national interest, is the right thing to do, and is in accordance with the law of the land. I will certainly be looking at this over the coming days, and I will want to be satisfied that those efforts are not being frustrated.

I thank the staff in the Home Office who facilitate removals every day of the week. It is not right that people are here illegally. There is of course due process, and it must be respected and followed at all times.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

As we take back control of our borders, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence in the face of the lefty lawyers, the unions and the so-called charities who are abusing our judicial process? Does he agree that—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey)—much of this opposition is born of complete ignorance of Rwanda and the people of Rwanda? We could be relocating people to Norway, Switzerland or even Monaco and these people would still oppose it, because what they actually believe in are open borders.

[Tom Pursglove]

It has often occurred to me that there are individuals, in this House and beyond it, who believe that we ought to have unlimited immigration to our country and that there ought not to be proper border controls, but, of course, they do not want to be straightforward about those motives and intentions. We, as a Government, believe that there must be proper border controls. The last Labour Government actually respected some of these principles, but we do not hear any of them being talked about in the modern setting by the shadow Home Secretary or the shadow immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

It is right and proper that we have those proper border controls, that they are properly enforced, that people come here through safe and legal routes, and that those with no right to be here are removed without any needless delay, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

It is the EU Commission.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may recall that the Leader of the Opposition once infamously said that all immigration controls are racist. Does she agree that all immigration controls are racist, or does she agree with me that that demonstrates not only that the Opposition cannot be trusted on small boats but that a Labour Government means open borders?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend. First, I think Labour Members have made their position clear, not just on legal migration but on illegal migration, with their resistance to everything we have done on a points-based system, ending free movement and, obviously, our plans now to reform a broken asylum system and tackle illegal migration. The Bill is an important piece of legislation. We want to make it harder for the criminal gangs behind these crossings; we want to make the UK less attractive and viable for illegal migration, which really is crucial; and importantly—this is something that the Labour party has not been supportive of either—we want to remove those individuals with no legal right to be here, and we will do that through our legislation.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]]

Many constituents have shared their frustrations with me over the issue of illegal encampments. Although many Travellers are law-abiding citizens, illegal sites can cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. They also play havoc with local sports clubs and businesses and the Bill will put a stop to that. I am pleased that these measures are proportionate and that we have taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted.

Some people are claiming that the Bill will somehow stop people’s right to protest, and that is simply not true. What makes it worse is that some are trying to link it with temporary covid restrictions, which is a completely separate issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent events, it is abhorrent and totally wrong for groups to try to use a tragic incident as a smokescreen to oppose legislation that they do not like. This legislation means tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and those attacking emergency service workers. By campaigning against this Bill, they are also campaigning against these measures.

The Bill is also designed to stop the behaviour of extremist groups such as Extinction Rebellion or BLM causing serious disruption by stopping trains running or by gluing themselves to buses. Serious disruption is a well-established and defined concept. The changes bring static protests in line with equivalent provisions that apply to marches or processions under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. For example, a protest does not cause serious disruption just because it may distract employees in a nearby office, and nor would a peaceful vigil in a park cause serious disruption.

Examples of things that could cause serious disruption might include blocking a bridge or a road to stop pedestrians or traffic getting through. We saw that happen when Extinction Rebellion decided to block Westminster Bridge. While these people were dancing and having fun, ambulances needed to be diverted and cancer patients had to walk to hospital instead. Another example of serious disruption might also include preventing a train from leaving a station. What sort of organisation claims that it wants to stop climate change and then prevents people from using public transport? People from those organisations do not understand the value of a proper day’s work.

People physically preventing a printing press from operating because they disagree with the editorial position of that publication is another example of serious disruption. These people talk of freedoms yet attack freedom of speech and the freedom of our press, including titles such as The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the London Standard. This is not just an attack on them, but on all our media.

Our freedoms are precious and we must do everything we can to ensure that freedom is enjoyed by all and not hijacked by these groups. This Bill, using sensible, fair and proportionate measures, will set us on a course to do just that.

Fire Safety Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]]

I support Lords amendment 2, and I hope we will be able to vote on the amendments that Members have tabled. I also hope the Government will finally honour the promises to leaseholders that they have been making for the past three years, and this Bill is an opportunity to do that.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a problem facing hundreds of my constituents living in flats recently built by Barratt at Waterside Park alongside the Thames and Upton Gardens on the site of the Boleyn Ground, where West Ham used to play. Freeholds have since been bought from Barratt by Aviva. The landlord agent is Mainstay, and the property manager is FirstPort. The buildings in both developments have a B1 EWS1 certificate. There is combustible material in the walling, but the risk is not sufficient to warrant requiring its replacement. The combustible material is in a vapour layer within the structure. That material is still being used in buildings being built now, and there has been no suggestion that builders should stop using it. Leaseholders in the development have had no problems in obtaining a mortgage, given the B1 certification.

These buildings clearly do not meet the criteria for the Government’s cladding fund. Nevertheless, the property managers made an application for funding to replace this combustible vapour layer. In the case of Upton Gardens, the application has been refused. In the case of Waterside Park, the decision is still awaited, but presumably that will be refused as well. However, the property managers appear poised to embark on replacing this combustible material at an estimated cost of £30,000 per flat, which they will charge to the leaseholders. They have appointed contractors and paid for preliminary work already, although work has not yet begun in earnest. The material to be replaced is being used in buildings being built at the moment. There is no requirement to replace it, and the residents do not want to fund its replacement, so why is replacement poised to go ahead? The only motivation the leaseholders have been able to identify is to provide fee income for the managers.

Will the Minister state clearly today that buildings with B1 certification should not be remediated without agreement of the leaseholders? At the start of the debate, he said that 95% of high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have either been remediated or have workers on site doing the job. Can he tell us the actual figures? How many buildings have been remediated? How many buildings have workers on site? My constituents would be very interested to hear those numbers.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]]

This is a short but critical Bill. The Lords amendments, while well-intended, are inappropriate for the Bill and would require the drafting of primary legislation to make them legally workable. To make things worse, if these amendments were added to the Bill, both the Government and the taxpayer could be exposed to action by the owners of these buildings. That must be avoided, and therefore the Bill must be watertight. It would be quite wrong if we had to withdraw the Bill because of this.

Those undertaking inspections and assessments need clarity, and the key to that is to keep the Bill short. It would also be wrong to delay the implementation of the judge’s recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry, which the amendments would potentially cause. Legal advice must be accepted and forms the basis for making good on our promises, as does the input of independent experts.

Decisive action must be taken. The extra £3.5 billion committed by the Government, bringing total funding to £5 billion, is to be welcomed. This has culminated in a commitment to fully fund the replacement of unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and higher. While that is not the case for buildings between 11 and 18 metres, the new scheme will protect against unaffordable costs and limit them to £50 per month towards remediations. That also gives reassurance to banks and mortgage lenders. The new developer levy will ensure that developers make a contribution, and Gateway 2 should raise an extra £2 billion towards this.

As has been stated before, the Building Safety Bill will provide a new era of accountability for managing risk with the construction of these buildings. There will be tougher sanctions for those who fail to meet their obligations and a guarantee that it is they, not the taxpayer or leaseholders, who will remedy that. The Bill will also ensure that there is more transparency about the cost of maintaining a safe building, such as in the annual service charge. It is right that reasonable limits are placed on those charges and that leaseholders are protected from large-scale remediation costs. The Association of British Insurers has also backed the Government’s stance, as has Dame Judith Hackitt, the Government’s independent adviser on building safety.

The replacement of unsafe cladding and other remedial works must be taken seriously. The Fire Safety Bill alone cannot remedy that. Therefore, although these well-intentioned amendments are not appropriate, the wider approach must be considered and, indeed, welcomed.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

Nearly four years after the terrible Grenfell disaster, it is shameful that people are still living in unsafe buildings. More than 50% of blocks identified as having unsafe cladding have either not started or not completed remediation. That is causing sleepless nights for many across the country and deep anxiety about the threat of huge financial costs. The Government have failed to step in to protect leaseholders. The Minister said that these issues should be dealt with in another piece of legislation, but that comes across to the public as simply an excuse to kick these issues further down the road. As other Members have said, they are affecting our constituents now and should be tackled now.

I speak in support of the amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Although the Government announced additional funding for cladding remediation on 10 February, leaseholders living in buildings under 18 metres will still have to cover some cladding-related costs. The fund fails to cover the huge cost of rectifying other fire safety defects and the necessary interim safety measures. According to the UK Cladding Action Group, the average total cost of building remediation for cladding and other fire safety defects is £49,000. The group states that 33% of affected flat owners earn £35,000 or less a year. Those people cannot afford to cover the cost of high interim safety measures, excessive insurance premiums, the Government’s piecemeal loan scheme for buildings under 18 metres with cladding or the huge cost of remediating other fire safety defects.

Luton South constituents have told me that living with the threat to their safety and facing exorbitant remediation costs has severely impacted their mental health. Some are on the brink of bankruptcy as they are unable to cover the cost or sell their homes. That is an issue across the country. Seventeen per cent. of respondents to an Inside Housing survey said that they are exploring bankrupts.

Let us be clear who we are talking about. The people affected are social workers, teachers, nurses and other key workers in our communities. Many are first-time buyers. It is unjust to leave leaseholders to bear the costs. Leaseholders bought their properties in good faith, and were unaware of the failures of the regulatory system. The Government must deliver on their promise to keep the public safe by urgently remediating the remaining unsafe buildings, ensuring that leaseholders do not have to foot the bill and implementing the recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell tower inquiry.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I would like to reciprocate by wishing the hon. Lady a happy St Andrew’s day as well; I am sure the whole House will join me in that.

When it comes to removing people who are not British citizens—who are citizens of another country—but who put our constituents at risk, it is right that we move to deport as we currently do. The debate about whether some age threshold is appropriate is one that this House had in 2007, when the House rightly decided that anyone who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than a year is in scope. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says something from a sedentary position. He himself voted for that Act, so he expressed his opinion on this matter in the Division Lobby back in 2007.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I fully support what my hon. Friend is doing to deport these dangerous criminals and to keep people in this country safe. Is he as concerned as I am by reports that activist lawyers are trying to thwart the Government’s legal efforts to deport these criminals and keep the British people safe?

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green]

It is important that we set the direction of travel. We need to take this incredibly important step today. This work ought to be seen in the context of the total annual police budget, which is £12.3 billion, and not the £400,000 annual cost of the regulator, but we may have to revisit this at a later point as technology advances and changes with time.

Money is a key aspect. I highlighted earlier, in justification to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, the budget and the way it has changed. In 2008, the forensic science budget was about £120 million; in 2018-19, it was £50 million to £55 million out of a police budget of £12.3 billion that year, so we can see the reduction. Part of that may be due to improved efficiencies, but there are significant concerns in the system that things are being squeezed.

There are particular concerns about the squeeze when it comes to more niche services. We all know about services such as DNA and fingerprinting, which—this is very crude phrasing—might be seen as “mass production” services, but what about more specialised techniques? Mycology, for example, is a technique used in estimating times of death or events by using known growth rates of fungi, in providing trace evidence and in locating corpses. It can also include looking for causes of death or illness by fungi poisoning, and fungi used in biological warfare. There are quite extraordinary specialisms in the system.

One of the concerns highlighted to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee was about lower commissioning rates of those more specialist services. An individual who contributed to the inquiry, David Hawksworth CBE, highlighted that about 10 years ago he might have had about five or six cases per year but that has really dipped to perhaps one or two, or even zero, cases per year. If he needs accreditation—if he needs to go on courses to be able to present that information in the court environment—that will be a significant cost to him. If he rarely uses his skills to make such contributions, it will be a great expense to him. There ought therefore to be recognition in the regulator’s approach that, for many things, we do want those standards—the 17025 standards, which are generic laboratory standards—but exceptions to that ought to be considered, perhaps on a case-by-case basis.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

On that point, there has been some talk from smaller providers who are concerned at the cost of achieving accreditation. As I understand it, the Government are exploring with the Forensic Science Regulator ways to mitigate that and to work with those providers. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is important in ensuring that we get everybody signed up to this scheme to assist those small and medium-sized enterprises, which need our support now more than ever?

[Chris Green]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That reinforces the point that there are workstreams that have been ongoing for a long time, and that this is an opportunity to bring them to a conclusion, or at least to take an early step, as we seek to make progress.

The Bill is a vital step, and I fully support it. It is so timely. I really welcome and applaud the support from both sides of this House, and the overwhelming support and body of evidence that the upper Chamber has contributed, in supporting and supplementing the winning arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol North West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on introducing this excellent private Member’s Bill. I have learned so much about forensics today that I did not know before, and the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) have also greatly informed that.

During lockdown, many of us had to make a lot of changes for entertainment. One of my most enjoyable activities was a weekly Zoom quiz, but lockdown also gave many the opportunity to catch up on a bit of TV. I have been glued to the new “Cobra Kai” series on Netflix—a bit of an ’80s throwback—but I also managed to stumble across an old favourite of mine, “Quincy, M.E.”. For those who have never watched it before, it follows the exploits of a forensic pathologist who works for the police in Los Angeles, helping them to solve all manner of crimes. It was a groundbreaking series when it was first launched in the late 1970s, although nowadays many crime dramas are based on concepts similar to those that we have been discussing in the Chamber today. One of the things that always made me smile was that Quincy seemed to spend more time in restaurants and bars chatting to people, and would usually send his excellent assistant Sam off to the laboratory to do most of the actual work.

“Quincy, M.E.” stoked a real interest in me in the nature of forensics and the huge contribution it can make to police work in what has effectively become a new age of fighting crime. Forensic science has made it possible to investigate crimes that we once thought unsolvable, and has given hope to those seeking justice in historical cases.

Science and technology will drive this country’s economy forward, and I am delighted that we are investing in them. Earlier, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), whose constituency boasts a very famous female chemist, of whom I am very fond. We hope that such things will help to raise the profile of forensics. I am a former school teacher, and I would like to see more girls taking science, technology, engineering and maths; that is something that we really need to encourage.

Questions should be asked about the regulation and accreditation of such activities. Forensics is now widely used, so this Bill is to be welcomed. We want to ensure that the police, and the prosecution and defence in criminal proceedings, are adequately, sustainably and proportionately served by the high-quality scientific analysis of relevant evidence. That point was excellently made by my hon. Friend the Minister.

As it stands, the Forensic Science Regulator has no powers of enforcement, which is why we need to put it on a statutory footing. Although most of the services are completed in-house, an increasing number of small and medium-sized enterprises are providing them. Giving the FSR statutory powers will help to achieve consistency and will assist in the process of accreditation. It is also sensible to look at the assistance that can be given to smaller providers to help them meet the financial cost of accreditation.

[Chris Green]

Given recent events—some of the providers have failed—does my hon. Friend agree that having more comprehensive provision and more providers will enable a more resilient service? The excess capacity that could develop within the system would ensure that, if a problem arises in the future, other providers can cope with it.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on in his analysis. One of the joys of the free market and allowing businesses to thrive is that they can contribute and give us a wide base of providers. I fully endorse what he says. That very much forms part of the structure that we are looking at, which the Bill will hopefully strengthen. Standardisation will help us to move towards a more efficient system. I am delighted that the National Police Chiefs’ Council also supports this proposed legislation.

Going back to “Quincy, M.E.”, I cannot remember a single case being thrown out because the laboratory was not up to the correct standards or because people were not sure of Quincy’s credentials or the competence of those undertaking the work—as I said, Sam was very good, while Quincy was having his coffee or whatever it was—but we live in a very different time from the 1970s and ’80s. Digital forensics now plays a highly important role in police worked. I was an aspiring computer programmer once upon a time, on my Amstrad, typing in BASIC, which is now completely obsolete, of course. I am having to relearn things.

Non-accredited labs are open to far more challenge. We can be proud that we have high standards in the UK, but a move towards a statutory, regulated service would help to build on that and reduce the potential for any challenges to be made in court. We do not want to be losing cases on technicalities, and this Bill will help to prevent that.

I very much welcome the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West once again for introducing it, and everyone else for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Richard Fuller.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

As I have said, I will return to the House to outline how we will be implementing the recommendations from the lessons learned review.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

The UK has always welcomed those from other nations, and we can rightly be proud of our open and inclusive society. [Interruption.] We can also be thankful for the contribution of those who have chosen to make the UK their home and who add greatly to our society. I speak as somebody who is married to one such person who emigrated here to work for our fantastic NHS. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that improving the uptake and awareness of the schemes supporting those who were directly affected is a priority for her Department? Will she outline the steps she is taking to achieve that?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his questions, and he is right. I am really sorry that Members on the SNP Front Bench want to belittle my colleagues when they are speaking on these very important and sensitive issues.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right when it comes to the compensation scheme, which is complex. The Home Office is spending resources and time looking at how cases can be delivered and dealt with in a respectful way to ensure that individuals’ situations are fully assessed and that there is an accurate assessment of how they themselves experienced the injustices that took place through the Windrush scandal. It is right that we treat everybody with respect and dignity in the handling of their case. That is my objective, and he will have heard today that the money that has already been offered has now reached £1 million. Significant sums of money are being offered to individuals.

It is right that we take the time to provide the compensation in the right way. We have a good scheme in place. We have a scheme that was developed by Martin Forde, QC, in consultation with other stakeholders, and many of those stakeholders suffered the injustices of the Windrush scandal themselves.

Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

No.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Opposition should focus on the appalling criminal behaviour of the perpetrators, and not on the Government for simply implementing the law?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I think many people across many constituencies will be stunned by the attitude that some Labour Members are taking today.

Policing and Crime

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Members whose great maiden speeches we have heard in the House today. I have to admit that the election of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) was one of the great sadnesses of my election night, because his predecessor was a very good man and a good friend of mine. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will continue to work in the same vein. If he does, I know that, although I am sure we will disagree on much, will be able to work together well. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) gave a passionate speech in which he showed his vision for his constituency and for the country, which I welcome. He will be a great asset to the House.

I welcome many things that the Government are doing on policing and crime, not least the new recruitment drive and the police covenant, on which I and a great number of colleagues have been campaigning for a year or more, not least as part of the Blue Collar Conservative campaign and agenda that has driven so much in respect of policing as a key priority. I welcome the £15.2 billion funding package, which is up by £1.1 billion on last year.

I thank the Minister for meeting Nottinghamshire colleagues last week. Nottinghamshire has its own gripes about police funding and everything else, but I thank him for that meeting and trust that he will take those things forward. The announcement of additional funding was incredibly welcome in the wake of that meeting, and I know that those resources will go a long way towards supporting our local police to deliver what residents want and need. Throughout the election campaign, it was incredibly clear that policing and crime was a key priority for them. In particular, they felt as though their community policing had disappeared. We are going to get 107 additional officers in the first of three rounds, and that is very welcome. I will fight locally to make sure that the right proportion comes to us in Mansfield. I pressed the Minister in that meeting, and I do it again now publicly, to ensure that as many of the additional 20,000 officers as possible are visible in frontline roles, working with our communities. So much of the intelligence that enables us to deal with the rest of the crime on our streets and in our country comes from conversations on the frontlines between neighbourhood officers and the communities they get to know.

I am not entirely convinced about the graduate requirement for police recruitment. I hope that we will open up the recruitment process beyond graduates to all the different avenues available, including degree apprenticeships and everything else that has come forward through the system.

I also welcome the crackdown on serious violence, including proper sentencing, which we talked about in the House yesterday. In recent months, we have heard complaints from local people who see reports in the media about how those involved in drug rings, paedophiles and rapists are being given early release. That seems to be more and more prevalent, but whether that is actually the case or just a media perception, it is a growing concern among my constituents. I trust that we will be able to combat this effectively by ensuring that sentencing is clear and that we are open and honest with the public about what it means to receive these sentences.

Drugs drive so much of our crime. I know that the Minister has spoken previously about the drugs that have made such a huge difference in our communities. I know that so much of that crime has been led by drugs. I spoke to the previous policing Minister about Mamba and Spice in particular, which is a blight on our community and which in summer 2018 turned my town centre in Mansfield into a scene from a zombie video game. I pressed at the time for a review of the classification of Mamba and Spice, and 18 months on, that review is still ongoing. I ask the Minister to speak, if possible, to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs to drive that forward and make sure that we get proper change and decisions made, because the review been dragging on for a long time with no outcome.

I welcome the police covenant, the police protection Bill and the support behind the scenes for police officers, including for their mental and physical health, and so many other things that they need and deserve. Almost every member of my extended family is or has been a police officer, so I hear about those requirements from all angles. One that I have raised with the Minister previously came up when we met police representatives at party conference. It was about internal investigations in the police and how some of them seemed to drag on for an awfully long time, leaving often innocent officers at home on full pay and not able to take part in the work that they are qualified to do and that they want to do. I ask that we make sure—perhaps within the covenant —that those investigations are dealt with swiftly, both because victims and perpetrators need justice. Police must be held to account and to the law like everybody else, but we need to make sure that we are not leaving people at home being paid to do nothing when they want to be out and working on the frontlines.

The investment in Tasers is a positive thing. After quizzing my constituents about it—we have done some local polling—they were incredibly positive. I recognise that there are different community sensitivities and that their use will not be right everywhere, but certainly locally it has been incredibly popular. I personally think that every police officer who wants a Taser should be able to have one. We see the risks that our officers face on an increasingly regular basis, so it is only right that they are protected and able to protect our communities as well.

The Conservative party is, and should always be, the party of law and order, and if we are not delivering on that, we are not really doing our jobs very well. I have found myself concerned about this matter over the past few years. I think that we have got a job to do.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Retford in my constituency of Bassetlaw is currently mourning the tragic death of a gentlemen following a violent crime. With regard to protecting the public, it would help the police greatly if, once we lock people up, they stay locked up. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Opposition to support the Government’s plans to end automatic early release of violent offenders halfway through their sentence?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is vital that the public can trust in our sentencing and know that the punishment will fit the crime. That applies to all levels of crime. There is no benefit to people going into prison for two weeks and not getting any help or support while they are in there, then coming back out, having lost their housing or whatever it may be, and starting on the spiral of criminality again. In many cases, a longer sentence with more inbuilt support to help them to rehabilitate would be better. We need a proper review, and I hope that the Opposition will give that fair consideration when the Government try to deliver it

As I said, we have a job to do to rebuild trust with the police and with the public, who are rightly at the top of the agenda. To feel safe in their community is the No. 1 thing that the public wants and needs, and we should be delivering that, so I am pleased that it is absolutely at the top of this Government’s agenda. It was at the forefront of our election campaign. A lot of promises were made, and no doubt we will all hold the Government to account for delivery.

We need to ensure that residents get proper responses and proper communication, so they know what response they should be getting—that has also been raised with me regularly. We must ensure that we have a proper, fair and open sentencing system, particularly for serious offenders, and that we keep our communities safe. I know from conversation with the Minister in recent weeks that he is absolutely committed to delivering on that. He is on the right track, and I hope that legislation to deliver will be introduced as soon as possible. I absolutely welcome the Government’s commitment to policing and crime, and particularly to supporting those officers who do so much to keep us all safe.