Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know the work that he did in this area. I have seen the Prevent duty in operation, both on visits as a shadow Minister and in my constituency, as it happens. I appreciate his point about whether a statutory review is justified. Clearly, we are talking about an aspect that could be taken into account in a statutory review, but wider issues to which I have already referred could also be taken into account. A statutory review would give us the opportunity to re-evaluate the programme fully, to look at those communities that have lost confidence in it and why, and to improve our ability to tackle counter-terrorism.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I will speak about new clause 2 and the context in which it has been brought forward. The first responsibility of any Government is always to protect their citizens, and as the threats to our country evolve, so must our laws. In a speech on 17 October 2017, Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5, described the ongoing terrorist threat as

“multi-dimensional, evolving rapidly and operating at a scale and pace we’ve not seen before.”

The threat posed by terrorists and malicious actors is not going away—far from it. Last year, there was an increase of 58% in the number of arrests for terrorism-related offences. The threat is increasing and new clauses will be required to combat it.

Members have alluded to the fact that today is 11 September. No doubt we all remember where we were on this day in 2001 during the attack on the United States. I was on the wards in my first job as a hospital doctor. I was looking after an old lady who was watching television, and from behind her, I saw on the screen the aeroplane fly into the first tower.

We were all here last year when Westminster was attacked. People were tragically killed and PC Palmer gave his life protecting this House and protecting us. As we debate this topic today, we will be remembering those who were injured in those attacks and the good work and bravery of the police and the other emergency services who protect us. Every day when we come to work, the Annunciator reminds us that the threat level is “severe”. It has been severe continually for at least the past four years. This means that at any given time an attack is considered to be highly likely. As I said, it is our first duty to protect the citizens of the country. It is important, in a free and democratic country, that we do that in a way that is both proportionate and effective.

On declared areas, my understanding is that there is a significant precedent in Australia, where a specific law states that it is a criminal offence for people to go to an area. I understand that it has been used on three separate occasions in Australia, where, as is proposed here, the maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment. That is understandable, given what the Security Minister has said, which is that 400 people who have returned to this country are believed to have been active in fighting abroad.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems facing police and prosecutors when people come back from overseas is that if they want to investigate them for preparing acts of terrorism, it is sometimes extremely difficult to get hold of evidence that may be in other parts of the world? This measure is an important way of filling that gap in the law, so that people can, when the evidence allows it, fairly be brought to account.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He puts what I was going to say much more eloquently than I could. He is exactly right. The Government need to have a way to manage the threat posed by these individuals, when they are not able to gather evidence from abroad, perhaps in a country that is a very dangerous place to be. How effective does the Minister feel the measures have been, where they have been introduced in Australia, in preventing people from going to those places and prosecuting them on their return?

The Bill also serves a vital role in updating and closing the gaps in counter-terrorism legislation in the online world. As has been described eloquently by other hon. Members, the way people use the internet has changed and continues to change. Material is more likely to be shared online than as hard copy. Material is often streamed, rather than necessarily downloaded. As the growth of the internet has provided us with unprecedented ways to stay connected and share information with each other, its potential has also been harnessed by those who wish to do us harm. This is seen every day in the huge amount of terrorist propaganda that is created and shared online. This is done at a rate much quicker than our ability, at present, to remove it. The updating of the offence of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is viewed or streamed over the internet rather than downloaded is a reflection of how internet media are consumed today. In my view, this is an overdue update of our laws.

Furthermore, the Bill makes it clear that the existing offence of displaying in public an image that arouses reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation will now cover the display of images online. Again, that is important because if somebody on a protest march walks down a street carrying a flag or displaying an image, it will be seen by a limited number of people. Their ability to spread such images more widely and to influence more people is greatly enhanced by the ability to share them online. That is why this law is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is explaining to the House how terrible the attack in Salisbury has been. Does she agree that it is actually a threat to the whole United Kingdom and that it is important that the provisions in the Bill are carried through not only so that action can be taken but so that information can be shared with security and police services right across the United Kingdom?

[Dr Johnson]

I agree that it is important in any part of police work that, where appropriate, information is shared throughout the country so that individuals who seek to do us harm can be stopped or caught if they have already committed an offence.

Being able to stop people at a border and question their intentions on coming to this country will be important in enabling the Government, the security services and the police to protect the citizens of the UK.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents would expect us to be able to stop people at the border and question them in case they are a threat to this country?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for a great intervention. He is right that for many of our constituents, it will come as a surprise that we are not able to do this already.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

To continue on that theme, does my hon. Friend agree that the security elements of the White Paper on the future relationship will be essential in guarding our borders because they will ensure that we continue to work very closely with our European Union neighbours to tackle this as 28 countries, rather than just one?

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. Terrorism is a global threat. It affects us in this country, but, as we remember on 11 September, it has affected the United States, and it continues to affect countries throughout the world. It is absolutely right that we share information with trusted countries. We have the “Five Eyes” security grouping, and we also have the EU. It is important that we work with all our international friends to keep our country safe.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It was said earlier from a sedentary position, “Well, that’s what the EU is for.” Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the whole international community? We are leaving the EU, but does that mean that this is any less serious a subject? As my hon. Friend has said, we will continue to work with the EU even after we leave.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree absolutely.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Dr Johnson]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am happy for the hon. Lady to expand on her point before she gives way—I hope—again.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman looked so keen to get to his feet.

It is absolutely right that we tackle the threat to our country by co-operating with our international friends and neighbours, and those neighbours will of course include the EU. Furthermore, it will not matter that we have left the EU because it will be in our mutual interest to co-operate on security.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for continually giving way as it allows us to develop some of the points.

This power already exists. Our authorities have the ability to stop people at our borders and airports who are suspected—or not even suspected—of terrorist offences. We discussed on Second Reading—and I engaged with the Minister subsequently on this point—how Border Force often uses the power erroneously against British citizens travelling from Belfast to Birmingham, for example, or from Glasgow down to Birmingham or London, and so on. It is not appropriate. I hope in this debate to get a sense that there will be some restrictions on a power that is worth while and useful from a terrorist prevention perspective, but which is being used improperly and erroneously.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, although it is one for the Minister, rather than me. I would certainly expect the authorities to use the power proportionately and where necessary to keep people safe, not to stop and question people at the border without reasonable grounds.

Several hon. Members have raised the reasonable excuse issue in respect of people returning to this country. People who have been to a declared area will have the reasonable excuse defence. So people will be able to travel to these areas for legitimate purposes—for example, for journalism or to visit family for a funeral or some such important bereavement event. It will also be allowed for people delivering aid, and obviously for the armed forces. The Government have worked to ensure that these declared areas provisions meet the important test of protecting our citizens and are both proportionate and effective.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with taking interventions. She said a moment ago that leaving the EU would not matter in terms of our co-operation with the EU. Does she not understand that when we leave the EU we will be a third country and that third countries do not have the same access to information sharing as members of the EU? Indeed, it is why our “Five Eyes” allies like the UK being in the EU—they get access, through the UK, to information they would not otherwise have.

[Dr Johnson]

I disagree with the hon. and learned Lady. Each country has a duty to protect its citizens. She says the “Five Eyes” like access to the EU’s information, but is it not also reasonable to suppose that the EU likes access, through us, to information from the “Five Eyes”? I am sure that the Government would share information only with the consent of the countries that had given that information, when appropriate; it is as much in the interests of the EU to have access to our information as it is for us to have access to the EU’s information.

[Joanna Cherry]

Can the hon. Lady name any third country that has the same access to information trading within the EU as an EU member?

[Dr Johnson]

I am afraid that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Hayes]

It may be—I do not say this with any acrimony—that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) is letting her pro-European prejudices get the better of her understanding of security. The truth is that, as she will know, we draw on a variety of sources of information. It is true that we use the Schengen database, but only as part of the network of information that we gather across all kinds of borders and from all kinds of sources to help to inform our intelligence and security services. The likelihood of that changing as a result of our departure from the EU is being exaggerated by those who have a different agenda.

[Joanna Cherry]

Name a country that has the same access.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for his intervention. I agree with him profoundly. I think it is scaremongering to suggest that for some reason the EU would not wish to share security information with us, and that we would somehow become less of a security partner or friend because we had left the EU.

[Huw Merriman]

There is not a country that has left the EU yet. We are that test case. The reality is that the EU27 will rely on us hugely when it comes to security, because we are such a great provider of that. Perhaps I could urge Opposition Members to be a little more ambitious and recognise that we have a lot to gain from this, instead of running up the white flag.

[Dr Johnson]

Again, I agree profoundly.

The Bill is the result of a thorough review carried out by not just the Government but the security services of how we can best protect our citizens. I believe that we can best protect them by ensuring that the Government, the police and the security services have to hand all the tools that they need to deal with the modern threats that are posed to this country.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I echo the comments made by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) about the anniversary of 9/11 and the Westminster Bridge inquiry, and all who have been affected by those tragic events.

As we have heard from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), the first job of any Government, whether in London or in Edinburgh, is to keep their citizens safe. It is clear that we need to take action to update legislation in these difficult times of high-level terrorist threat combined with the constant march of technology and online communication. I fully appreciate the difficulty of keeping legislation current, answering the calls of the police and security services for further powers and maintaining the balance of freedom and civil liberties that we expect and enjoy. Of course, while we are supportive of the Government’s efforts, it is incumbent on any decent Opposition to offer amendments to improve the Bill and ensure that the Government get that balance right.

In Committee, we submitted many amendments that, sadly, the Minister was not wise enough to accept. However, he was wise enough to make some concessions to the Opposition. Amendment 2, for instance, would remove the requirement to view documents or records containing information likely to be useful to terrorists on three or more occasions—the three-click policy. We have some serious concerns about the impact that that may have on innocent individuals who have no interest in, intent to engage in, or wish to encourage terrorist acts. I am glad that the three-click policy has been removed, but I fear that it has simply become a one-click policy.

The previous policy was arbitrary and unworkable, given that the clicks could occur in an unspecified window of time, did not have to relate to the same content on each occasion and did not require any terrorist intent for the offence to be committed. As I did in Committee, I accept the Government’s point that more people now stream material online than download it to a computer or other device, and in that context it is vital that we continue to review our counter-terrorism approach.

The Government had argued in relation to clause 3 that the three-clicks requirement was intended to identify a pattern of behaviour; this amendment runs completely counter to that objective. As had been asked for in Committee, the Minister has included a reasonable excuse defence for this new one-click offence. I would like the Minister to address concerns raised by many, not least my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who say that it is possible that the wording will have the perverse impact of narrowing the reasonable excuse defence available to people charged with the offence, as the courts are likely to reason that, in legislating for a reasonable excuse without including lack of terrorist intent within that excuse, Parliament did not intend for lack of terrorist intent to be an available excuse for this offence. We have to ensure that the clause does not criminalise people who may view these documents with no nefarious intent, such as academics and journalists.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Let me be very clear that we are in the process of designing a compensation scheme. There has already been a call for evidence, and I will shortly be launching a consultation. Its design is going to be overseen independently by Martin Forde QC, and there will be no question with respect to the compensation scheme—no one will be asked to sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement or anything like that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

17. What steps the Government are taking to confiscate money from criminals; and how he plans further to strengthen the asset recovery regime.

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

We have recovered £1.6 billion under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 since 2010 and frozen many hundreds of millions more. The Government are also implementing the recommendations made in the Public Accounts Committee report of 2016. Our asset recovery action plan, to be published shortly, sets out how we will strengthen the regime by making the best use of new and existing powers, improving operational systems and ensuring that efforts are targeted effectively.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Lincolnshire police have been working hard to reduce hare coursing. The removal of dogs has been the most effective deterrent, but kennelling costs are now running to tens of thousands of pounds for Lincolnshire police. Will he look at what can be done to ensure that these costs, too, can be recovered from the criminal, rather than being borne by the taxpayer?

[Mr Wallace]

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, police and prosecutors have the power to recover either profit or money accrued by those criminals from those processes. When they take that money, under ARIS—the asset recovery incentivisation scheme—50% of it or more will be released back to law enforcement prosecutors so that they can invest.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

In the serious violence strategy published in April there were some examples of good practice, but my hon. Friend makes the point that since then, because of the use of some of the funds for example that were in that strategy, we have seen other good examples. We will be very happy to share them with my hon. Friend.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As a doctor who has treated children with both stab and gunshot wounds, I commend my right hon. Friend on what he is doing to try to reduce the violence on our streets but, equally, as a Conservative I am not keen to ban things that do not need to be banned. In the past, we banned handguns; what effect has that had on gun crimes committed with handguns in this country?

[Sajid Javid]

I share some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend: when a Government ban anything that must be led by the evidence. In doing that we must also listen to the experts on the frontline of fighting crime. As my hon. Friend said, she has in a way been on the frontline dealing with the consequences of this crime. She asked about handguns and the impact of the ban; I do not have to hand any particular numbers or statistics, but I will be happy to share them with her. My hon. Friend’s central point is appropriate: when any Government act to ban anything we must be very careful and make sure it is proportionate and led by the evidence.

Medicinal Cannabis

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the right hon. Lady for recognising the speed of movement by the Home Office this week in response to an emergency request from clinical leads at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The Home Secretary overruled nothing in this process. We worked together very closely this week and responded, as I said, very decisively to an emergency request for a limited licence in a direct call from the senior clinician and the medical director at the Chelsea and Westminster.

I understand the right hon. Lady’s point about public sentiment on this. People are unsettled by what they have seen, and we totally understand that. What I regret is that she is trying to make a party political point. Of course, she was in power and Labour was in power for a long time, and they did the square root of very little in this context. The system we are now trying to work with is basically the rules we inherited from the last Labour Government.

I do not think anyone in politics is in a position to take a high moral stand on this issue. We need to give an undertaking that the policies and processes will be informed by the most up-to-date evidence, and we challenge ourselves harder to make sure these processes are more clinically led than they have been in the past.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I refer Members to my declaration of interest, as a consultant paediatrician. Some compounds within cannabis have anticonvulsive properties. Cannabidiol has been shown in animal studies to have an active anticonvulsant compound, but THC, the one that is illegal in certain concentrations, has been found to have both anticonvulsant and proconvulsant properties in animal studies, and there are concerns that it may also be responsible for causing significant psychological problems, such as psychosis, if used over a longer period. Epidiolex is a pharmaceutical grade, quality-assured product that contains cannabidiol but less than 0.1% THC, and it is both legal and used in clinical trials in this country, including with children. The oils available on the internet or at health food shops are not subject to that sort of scrutiny, do not have the same level of quality assurance and have variable levels of concentrations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a huge difference between these two products—the quality-assured one and the not quality-assured one—and that we need to investigate the best possible scientific evidence on the usage and benefits of cannabis-based medicines, so that they can be used safely and properly to the best effect for our patients?

[Mr Hurd]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s medical knowledge, and her intervention just reinforces the point I am trying to make about the need for this process to be clinically led, as far as is possible. She is making the point about there being certain cannabis medicines and certain conditions, and the evidence is at best mixed on this. She makes the fundamental point about our responsibility, as regulators, being to make sure that people are accessing and using products that are tried and tested, and as safe as possible. Let us imagine the consequences of prescribing an unregulated medicine that goes wrong—imagine the scene in this House at that point. In our, understandably, emotional response to recent events, we must also make sure that we do policy right and get it right. That is why we require a little more time to come back to this House with more detailed plans.

Rural Crime and Public Services

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for introducing this debate, the subject of which is important to me and my constituents. In fact, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rural crime. Coincidentally, we had a meeting last night at which we discussed a number of topics, such as the theft of heating oil and diesel, the benefit of drones—drones have already saved lives in Lincolnshire and elsewhere—the use of WhatsApp groups in policing rural areas, the theft of rural machinery, the fear of isolation among those living in isolated areas, and the National Police Chiefs Council rural and wildlife crime strategies, as described by the Minister. I invite Opposition Members, as well as any more Conservative Members who wish to join, to come along and join our APPG so we can tackle rural crime together.

One of the main areas of discussion yesterday evening was hare coursing, a cruel crime in which lurcher-style dogs chase after a hare. Often there are bets on which dog will catch the hare first, as part of which gangs of mostly men in 4x4s and other heavy vehicles traipse across farmers’ land in pursuit of the animals to make sure they see which dog catches the hare in order to secure the bet.

Hare coursing is a disgusting crime, and it has a huge impact on farmers that is not well understood. Some who see the tyre tracks going across fields and the torn up crops might not think it important, but it is important. The farmer has invested in those crops, which they have nurtured to provide that year’s income for their family. The crime is essentially the same as going into John Lewis, or a similar store, on Oxford Street and destroying every item of merchandise, and then preventing the shop from restocking for the next 12 months. This is a serious crime, which has a huge impact economically and on a farmer’s lifestyle. I should mention at this point that although I have not been a victim of hare coursing crime, my husband is a farmer.

Hare coursing is not just a criminal pastime, but a pastime of criminals. One thing Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner has made clear to me is that the vast majority of the people the police catch for this crime come not from Lincolnshire, but from elsewhere. They have come across county lines to commit crime in Lincolnshire, perhaps because they feel it gives them the best chance of not being caught. It is fear of being caught that will stop them doing these things.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There is hope, because our PCC is making huge strides by using drones. It is important in these debates that we are not miserable the whole time. There are technological ways in which we can combat crime with great success.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come on to discuss that shortly.

The crime of hare coursing also involves a fear of violence, because when farmers catch these people many of them threaten the farmer with violence then and there. Sometimes when the crime is reported to the police the farmer is threatened with having their sheds burned down. In some cases pets or livestock have been injured deliberately to try to frighten farmers into not reporting the crime or not pursuing a prosecution for it. Once prosecution occurs, we encounter an issue with sentencing, as it does not reflect the severity of this crime, with an average fine of £250.

[Mr John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a vigorous and effective case on hare coursing in Lincolnshire. She knows that our PCC, Marc Jones, and our chief constable, Will Skelly, have done pioneering work to counter this activity, with good effect. Will she join me in asking those on the Treasury Bench to examine the whole matter of sentencing, as there is a good case for having a specific offence related to hare coursing, so that once the police do their job, the courts will back them up and encourage them to do still more?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. He rightly says that the fines are not proportionate, and indeed our next all-party group meeting will be with the Solicitor General to discuss the impacts of sentencing on rural crime. The dogs themselves can be worth very much more than £250 and some of the bets are for £10,000 or more. My right hon. Friend makes reference to Operation Galileo, a Lincolnshire police initiative masterminded by Bill Skelly and Marc Jones, our Conservative PCC. It has had great success in Lincolnshire, with the number of incidents having gone down from 2,000 to 1,400. The police credit that 600 fall to two initiatives, the first of which is the institution of criminal behaviour orders, whereby people convicted of hare coursing are no longer allowed to be in a vehicle and in possession of a lurcher-style dog, or in the company of others with such an animal, in Lincolnshire. However, Lincolnshire police can catch these people but they can then go to Cambridgeshire or North Yorkshire to do the same thing. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing courts to impose such an order covering a wider geographical area, so that the Cambridgeshire police do not then have to catch these people, then the North Yorkshire police have to do the same, and so on. These orders could apply in other areas as soon as someone has been caught once.

The main initiative that has brought about the success is the seizing of dogs, because, as I say, the dog is what is valuable to these criminals. Taking the dog from them means they are not able to pursue their crime; these dogs are trained to do what they are doing. Tackling the crime is expensive; we have seen the crime fall in Lincolnshire, but I understand from our PCC that dog kennelling fees have cost £46,000 this year. There is currently no provision in law to reclaim that money from the criminal once they have been prosecuted, so I ask the Minister to consider whether he can add a clause into law that would allow the kennelling fees to be reclaimed from the criminal after their conviction. That would be only fair and reasonable.

In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned that there was no definition of rural crime, but police tell me that intelligence and evidence-based policing is hampered by the fact that they do not have some of the data that they need. I therefore ask her to consider better and more detailed recording of crime—heating oil theft and hare coursing are not always specifically recorded—so that we can identify where these crimes are taking place and target them much more effectively.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) mentioned fear. Nobody should experience fear in their own home. People have a right to feel safe as well as to be safe. In an isolated setting, however, it is perhaps understandable that people do not always feel that way. If a person is attacked in their flat, or if someone comes into their home, or they feel unsafe, they can scream, run outside and seek help relatively quickly. If someone is in an isolated rural farmhouse, more than a mile from the nearest property, it is understandable that the response time from the police and from any member of the public will be much slower. That would leave them feeling much more isolated.

I have great admiration for the work of Lincolnshire police, especially the way that they police a large geographical area, with 6,000 miles of road and a widely dispersed population. It is a credit to them that our crime level is among the lowest in the entire country, but money is an issue. Lincolnshire police has one of the lowest levels of funding in the country. I understand the point that there is only so much money and that it has to be shared out somehow, but we receive the least amount of funding for a service that is more difficult and more expensive to deliver because of the area that the police have to cover. Moreover, a particularly high proportion of our money is funded locally. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that it is reasonable for some of the money to come from local sources as it is directed back locally, and for some of it to come from central Government grant. However, at the moment, there are areas of the country, particularly urban areas, where the local population is being asked to contribute around 25% of the money that is used for the overall policing budget in their area, and yet in Lincolnshire, it is 43%, and I understand that in North Yorkshire it is closer to 50%. We need greater fairness. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking into how we can make police funding much fairer in the future, and I will be happy to support them in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It is vital, as we have heard from colleagues across the House, that we tackle the challenge of crime in rural communities. My constituency is unusual on Teesside in that it is the only one with a significant rural element, in the shape of rural East Cleveland. At my rural club, I have heard eloquent testimony from local farmers and people who run rural businesses on issues such as hare coursing, theft, trespass, and the production of drugs on isolated patches of farmland. There is a very serious problem. Perhaps it does not attract some of the media attention that urban crime, particularly crime in the capital, receives, but that does not mean that it is not very serious.

For example, in the coastal town of Saltburn at Easter, there was a real wave of antisocial behaviour. The Coco & Rum restaurant was attacked. A gang of youths was gathering around the local Sainsbury’s, drawn there by the wi-fi signal. Saltburn may not be a rural community, but it is a coastal community, so it falls into the category of somewhere that is quite difficult to police.

Good local policing makes a huge difference in cracking down on all these problems. I pay great tribute to the work of the Guisborough neighbourhood policing team, who are the main focus of policing in East Cleveland. Led by Inspector Fay Cole, they do a really fantastic job. They do not have large numbers of people. They have a very large area to police—it profiles as somewhere with many of the features of an urban community, just spread out in a more disparate fashion. They do a brilliant job. At the Skelton McDonald’s during the recess, I heard directly from the people there how grateful they were for the work of the local constabulary in cracking down on problems they had had with antisocial behaviour. So it can be done. Considering the resources that are available, the team do an outstanding job.

That brings me to the issue of resources. I will concede that there is funding pressure on our police. That would be my No. 1 priority for additional investment as our national finances stabilise, and I welcome the comments made by the Home Secretary in his Andrew Marr interview at the weekend. However, I find it well-nigh unbelievable that Labour Members show such collective amnesia as to why we are in the current situation regarding our public finances. The ruinous state that we inherited in 2010, which they—[Interruption.] They look down. They look at their phones. They look anywhere other than at the truth of the matter, which is—[Interruption.] The truth of the matter is that it was a shambolic situation, and we are still paying the price for it now. Were they to have the opportunity to put into practice some of the policies that they boast about now, we would very quickly return to that state of affairs.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is giving an important speech and making his point very well. Is it not right that the cost of the interest we are paying on the debt created by the Labour Government is roughly equivalent to the current policing budget? Had they not created such huge levels of debt, would we not be able to provide a much better service?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is completely right. The Opposition may deny it because it is fundamentally inconvenient to them.

G4S: Immigration Removal Centres

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

G4S is held to account not just by the Home Office but centrally through Cabinet Office reporting requirements. The new procurement process will provide a basis for further progress on all these issues, and the progress of G4S will continue to be monitored very closely.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Morton Hall in my constituency is an immigration removal centre facing significant challenges and issues. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to improve immigration removal centres including not just Brook House but Morton Hall?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend will know of the issues in her own constituency. Morton Hall is in a slightly different category because it is run by the Prison Service and not by G4S. That reflects the fact that these are people who are being detained in a prison environment awaiting their removal. The Government take very seriously the treatment of people whose immigration status is not to their liking and who have appeals and so on in the process. The fact that the vast majority of people who are liable to removal from the UK are in the community being dealt with through alternatives to detention should, I hope, give comfort to the House.

Rural Policing and Hare Coursing

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As somebody who used to live in his constituency, I empathise strongly with the concerns he raises. I will set out similar examples of my constituents who have shared the same experience.

My first and principal concern is the threat that hare coursing poses to farming communities. Hare coursers are not simply a few individuals quietly chasing hares on unused land: they are, most often, large groups who show serious contempt for the law. This results in a number of significant problems for my constituents. Farms are vandalised; people are intimidated; and often farmers are isolated and unable to count on the law for timely protection.

The National Farmers Union has found that hare coursing is now the most common crime experienced by farmers in Wiltshire. That has a number of troubling implications for rural communities.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that hare coursers marauding across farmers’ land in their vehicles not merely cause an unsightly mess but vandalise livelihoods, and should be dealt with accordingly?

[John Glen]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention: I absolutely agree. Again, I will come on to set out more examples and give the Minister some suggestions on what could be done to deal with the problem.

I want to outline some of the implications of hare coursing. First, when entering these private lands, hare coursers and poachers regularly cause criminal damage to gates, hedgerows, fences and growing crops. This creates financial costs arising from repairs to the damage and the need to increase security infrastructure, probably involving CCTV cameras. It also wastes a huge number of man hours as farmers are forced to look for damage and repair it. This is extremely time consuming, frustrating and upsetting for many farmers, whose land is the single most important asset of their business and their livelihood.

My constituent Chris Swanton, whose family have farmed on his farm for several generations, has regularly experienced at first-hand on his farm in South Wiltshire the problems I have described. He wrote to me saying:

“I get upset because I am very passionate about my farm and I have a certain amount of pride in the appearance of my fields and crops. I find it gutting and very depressing to drive around my farm after hare coursers have been all across my fields.”

It is totally unacceptable for farmers like Chris who have worked 80 hours a week preparing seed beds and planting crops to find them ruined by mindless vandals. His experiences are by no means unique, as this happens right across my constituency, and, from what colleagues have been telling me in the past few days, over large tracts of rural England.

The impact for victims is not merely economic. Many face unjustifiable intimidation and antisocial behaviour on their doorsteps. Hare coursers will often threaten and behave violently towards landowners who attempt to challenge them or collect evidence to report to the police.