Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill—
Timetable
1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day’s sitting.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3.–(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On an Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—
(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
13.–Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
It may assist the House if I say a few words about the allocation of time motion without, of course, debating the substance of the Bill. Clearly, the motion goes to the heart of our case for a fast-track Bill.
As hon. Members will recall, in the debate on 22 October my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a commitment to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had the powers that it needs to undertake its investigations into Hillsborough thoroughly and exhaustively. The bereaved families and the survivors have waited 23 years for the truth; they should not have to wait years more for justice. The IPCC needs to get on with these investigations as fast as possible, and to do that it needs these additional powers by early in the new year. I fully recognise that today’s timetable is a tight one. None the less, given the very specific issues that the House is being asked to consider, I am satisfied that the House, and in due course the other place, will have sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is unusual to put a Bill through this place in a day, and the procedure should be used only rarely. Given the lack of Government business in the past few weeks, I wonder why we did not have the Second Reading debate sooner so that we could proceed with the later stages today. What is the reason for the delay between the statement and getting to this point?
Damian Green
The statement was made four or five weeks ago. The IPCC had to look at the matter, and we have had discussions with it about the extra powers that it thought it needed, which the Bill very narrowly addresses. I share what I divine to be my hon. Friend’s instincts about emergency fast-track legislation. When it is needed, as it occasionally is, it should be drafted as narrowly as possible. As for the timetable, we have moved as fast as possible, consonant with consulting the many people involved, inside this House and outside, so that we could get to the point where today we can have a Second Reading debate. We will have four hours to consider the motion itself and for Second Reading. The motion then provides for a further two hours for Committee stage, to take place on the Floor of the House, and for the remaining stages. We therefore have a total of up to six hours to consider the Bill today. I welcome the support from those on the Opposition Front Bench for expediting the Bill; similarly, I welcome the support of the Home Affairs Committee, as set out in its report, which was published this morning. I hope that the House as a whole will understand the need for fast-tracking the Bill and will support the motion.
Damian Green
I am grateful for the remarks that have been made. If it is of any reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I share his instincts, but I think that everyone understands the importance of speeding up this Bill and the fact that, within the constraints of a tight timetable, the Government have done their best to consult everyone who should be consulted, both inside and outside the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The events of 15 April 1989 were a tragedy. Ninety-six innocent men, women, and children lost their lives. More than 700 people were injured, many seriously. The impact of those events on all those who watched the tragedy unfold, desperate to help, on the survivors, and on the families and friends of the 96 victims, is felt to this day and must never be forgotten.
We have today an opportunity to address what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called the “double injustice” that has been suffered, first through the tragedy itself, and then through 23 years of lies and obstruction. That is why we have brought forward this fast-track legislation.
With the publication of the report of the Hillsborough independent panel on 12 September, the truth about the events of that day is finally known. I pay tribute again to the Right Rev. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, and all the panel members for their dedicated and tireless work in producing the report. It has drawn a line under the lies, rumour, innuendo and conjecture that have surrounded the disaster for the past 23 years.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his contribution in getting us to this stage. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who have worked tirelessly to get to the truth. The whole House is grateful to them. I am also grateful to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for the constructive discussions that they have had with me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which have enabled us to introduce the Bill in a spirit of co-operation across the whole House.
I also pay tribute, not least, to the families of the victims. Without their unwavering commitment, we would simply not have reached this important point in the search for justice. I believe that without their dedication, there would have been no independent panel, no report into the Hillsborough disaster, no parliamentary debates and no possibility of exposing the truth and obtaining justice.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I again put on the record the unanimous support of the Select Committee for the Bill? Aspects of our tenth report, which we published this morning, go beyond the scope of clauses 1 and 2. Will the Minister assure the House that he will look at those other points, for example on the creation of a lead investigator, the need for co-ordination by the Home Secretary and the need for her to publish a timetable? Even though those points are not relevant to the Bill, they are very relevant to the future conduct of the investigation.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the Select Committee for producing the report for this debate and for taking parts of it out of its important wider investigation into the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the points that he and the Select Committee have made are under consideration. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest that the various investigations proceed as fast as possible, consonant with the fact that many of them are being carried out by bodies that are rightly independent of Government.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Minister say what the attitude is of the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Bill?
Damian Green
The Police Federation and the superintendents have written to express their reservations and I have written back to them. I obviously meet the Police Federation and the supers regularly. I am meeting the Police Federation next week and this matter will be on the agenda. I have not had a formal exchange with ACPO, so it would be unfair for me to express its collective view.
The findings of the independent panel’s report are deeply distressing. The failure of the authorities to protect the fans, the attempts to blame them and the doubt cast on the original coroner’s inquest are particularly troubling findings. It should not have taken 23 years to get to this point, but finally the report gets us to the stage of knowing the truth—a truth that is now accepted by all. The report exposes many attempts that were made by the authorities—those charged with protecting the public and with uncovering the truth of the events—to change official records, obscure the truth and paint a different picture of what happened.
The truth is both shocking and essential, but it is not the end. As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, we now need to move from truth to justice. It is that move that is at the centre of the Bill. As the Home Secretary set out to the House in the debate on 22 October, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced an investigation into the panel’s findings. That is an important step on the path to achieving justice for the victims of the disaster.
The IPCC will investigate the conduct of the officers at Hillsborough on that day, and those who were involved in the subsequent investigations. That means that it will investigate both misconduct and criminality, not only of any officers who are still serving in any police force in the UK, but of any officers who have since retired. Normally, the IPCC would pursue retired officers only for matters relating to criminal behaviour. For criminal behaviour, the sanctions are clear: the officer, serving or retired, will face criminal charges. For misconduct matters, sanctions can bite only serving officers, so it is rare to undertake an investigation of retired officers for misconduct. However, in relation to Hillsborough, the IPCC has made it clear that it will investigate retired officers for both criminal behaviour and misconduct because the public interest is compelling.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s proposals, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, like me, is surprised that page 10 of the Bill research paper states that the IPCC cannot already compel serving police officers simply to attend an interview in connection with any ongoing investigation. Does he believe that there should be clear sanctions against those who refuse to do that?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. First, he asked whether I was surprised that the power did not already exist. To some extent, yes I am. Obviously, the IPCC was set up under the Police Reform Act 2002 and given powers then. Perhaps this is the first time that so much focus has been on it—indeed, it has caused the House to agree to emergency legislation to give the IPCC that particular power.
Secondly, I know that sanctions are of particular concern. As has been said, we will debate the matter in detail on an amendment to the relevant clause in Committee later. However, I preview my thoughts on that by pointing out that clear sanctions will be available to chief constables and forces to apply to those who refuse to obey what will be an IPCC instruction, and later a requirement. They will be very powerful.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister may recall that I wrote to him about retired officers, and I thank him for his response. Will he be clear about whether such former officers would be required to attend any sort of interview? My understanding of the Home Affairs Committee report is that the Bill does not provide for that, and that could hinder the investigation. Will he make it clear whether there is a way of ensuring that people are available to be interviewed?
Damian Green
The case is different for retired officers because they are essentially members of the public. The police cannot compel a member of the public to attend an interview as a witness. If the police feel that it is necessary to interview someone, they have to arrest them if they are unwilling to help voluntarily. It would be strange to give the IPCC powers that the police do not have. Having said that, my expectation is that—inevitably, in this case—there will be many retired officers, simply because of the length of time since Hillsborough, and that they may have useful evidence to give as witnesses. I hope and expect that many will wish to help.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
It is 23 years since Hillsborough and more than 20 years since most of the incidents that concern us occurred. Has the Minister any idea of how many officers from that time are still serving, and how many have retired or moved on?
Damian Green
The IPCC is still going through that information. The majority of officers may well have retired by now. This is a large undertaking and represents the biggest single investigation that the IPCC has ever done. It estimates that this will involve it investigating more than 2,400 officers. That is the overall quantum—the actual division is not yet clear. Obviously, many officers may have moved to other forces, and so on.
Steve Rotheram
If the right hon. Gentleman will not put sanctions in the Bill, as seems likely, what confidence does he have that police forces will take the necessary disciplinary action against serving officers who refuse to help the IPCC?
Damian Green
I have very great confidence in that. There are two points to make in response to the hon. Gentleman, the first of which is that similar sanctions under the conduct regulations are not in any other Bill, so it would be anomalous suddenly to pluck out the sanction for this offence and put it in legislation. Secondly, and more importantly in practical terms, given the enormous and understandable public interest in the matter, the relevant chief officers will be extremely keen to ensure that they use their powers to take sanctions—ultimately, officers who break the conduct regulations in that way can be dismissed. The conversations I have had with senior officers in recent days suggest that that is the case.
I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) that the IPCC has said that the investigation will be the biggest it has ever undertaken. The Government recognise the additional burden that such a large investigation places on it. We have made it clear that we will ensure that the commission has both the powers and the resources it needs to conduct its investigations into Hillsborough. We take that commitment seriously, which is why we have introduced this fast-track Bill.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The IPCC has accepted two separate complaints, which may or may not overlap. One is in relation to Orgreave in 1984, and the other is in relation to the mystery over the investigation into Norman Bettison for an alleged major theft in August 1987. How will the IPCC be able to look at those two investigations when it has such a heavy burden placed on it, particularly if it finds anything that in any way crosses over because of the individuals involved or anything else?
Damian Green
I should restrict my remarks to Hillsborough, which is the purpose of the Bill; it is deliberately narrowly drawn. It is for the IPCC to decide how to use its resources. The Bill gives a power to the IPCC to consider events previously investigated by its predecessor body, the Police Complaints Authority, but it is for the IPCC to decide whether exceptional circumstances obtain to allow it do so. It is for the IPCC to decide whether to accept individual complaints. On the hon. Gentleman’s other complaints, may I urge Members on both sides of the House not to indulge in debate and speculation about individuals? I would not want anything said on the Floor of the House to jeopardise any live investigations being conducted by either the IPCC or the police.
Since the publication of the panel’s report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, and Home Office officials, have liaised closely with the IPCC, which has identified two additional powers it needs urgently in order to take forward its investigations into Hillsborough. Those powers are contained in the Bill.
As many hon. Members will know, discussions with the IPCC regarding its powers have been taking place for some time. I am aware of the calls for wider reform of the IPCC and how police complaints are handled more generally. Let me be clear to the House that those discussions are still taking place. The Home Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence last week, is coming to the end of an inquiry into the IPCC. Naturally, the Government will want to study the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations before coming to a final view on any wider reforms to the IPCC. If there are other gaps in the IPCC’s powers, we will plug them as soon as is practicable, but the Bill’s focus is on gaps in the commission’s powers that it has identified as preventing it from undertaking a thorough and exhaustive investigation in Hillsborough without delay.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
One of the things that emerged clearly from the report was the role of South Yorkshire police federation in putting out the “alternative” view of Hillsborough. I suspect I know the answer, but I want to be clear for the record—that someone cannot argue they were acting in a representative capacity as a police federation representative in order to escape what is being sought under the Bill. In other words, the Bill’s provisions will apply to them even if they were acting as representatives of the police federation and its members, just as they would to police officers generally.
Damian Green
That is a question for the IPCC investigation; it is not for Ministers to act as judges or investigators. I know it is an important point, but it is better addressed to the IPCC.
Dr Huppert
The Minister says he is open to plugging gaps. He knows I have pressed him before about people occupying quasi-police roles. He wrote to me to say he is actively considering the issue. Will he indicate where that consideration has reached?
Damian Green
Short of reading again what I have just said, that is what we are doing. The Select Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, is conducting an investigation. It has not published its final report, but when it does so the Government will look at it and all the matters it raises seriously.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that the IPCC has asked for two powers that are contained in the Bill. What conversations has he had with the IPCC since the Bill was published about anything that is missing? He says he has had conversations with chief officers, specifically on sanctions. What conversations has he had with the IPCC about sanctions?
Damian Green
I have had extensive conversations with the IPCC. I have seen its briefing to Members, which led to the all-party group amendment. I have specifically discussed sanctions with the IPCC. As I have said in more general terms, if there is a need to widen the IPCC’s powers the Government will look at it with an open mind and with a view to legislation, but it is sensible to await the Select Committee report before committing ourselves in any detail. It will be for the IPCC to investigate whether individuals involved on the day should face misconduct or criminal proceedings; we must ensure it has the powers it needs. The IPCC has been clear: that fully to investigate the terrible events of 15 April 1989 it needs to hear the testimony of officers involved on the day and in subsequent investigations.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the correspondence he gave the all-party group yesterday. He makes absolutely the right case on the powers the IPCC needs for retired officers. Does he agree that, even if there are substantial legislative issues with retired officers, there is an absolutely clear moral case that retired officers should co-operate with the IPCC?
Damian Green
Yes, absolutely. I agree unequivocally, and it is a widely held view in the police service as well. I know that the hon. Lady understands that retired police officers are just members of the public, however, and therefore that giving the IPCC powers that the police do not have to compel witnesses to appear would be anomalous and certainly not something we would want to do through emergency fast-track legislation. Nevertheless, she made the moral case very powerfully.
The IPCC has existing powers to interview officers and former officers who are themselves the subject of an investigation for either a conduct or a criminal matter. The IPCC can already compel a suspect to attend an interview, but it needs to hear from officers not just when they themselves are the subject of the investigation. It also needs to obtain evidence through interviews from those who might have seen the events unfold, when they might have seen or heard of fellow officers amending statements and records—in other words, when they had witnessed key events in relation to Hillsborough.
As I have said, the IPCC can compel officers who are themselves under investigation to attend for interview. Clause 1 extends this power so that serving police officers and police staff can be compelled to attend for interview as witnesses as part of any investigation managed or independently undertaken by the IPCC. The power will apply to officers in Home Office forces and other policing bodies, such as the British Transport police. I am clear that any serving officer who fails to comply with a request to attend such an interview should face disciplinary measures. I emphasise that point once again.
That is consistent with the existing regime that applies when a person who is the subject of an investigation fails to attend for interview. For the sake of clarity, I will repeat that such disciplinary matters may have serious consequences, including— ultimately—dismissal. I have set out that the power granted through clause 1 applies to individuals still serving with the police. The IPCC will not be able to compel a retired officer to attend an interview as a witness through the use of this power.
Several hon. members have asked why the provision should not apply to retired officers, but, as I said, they are in the same position as ordinary members of the public and so are no longer bound legally by the same responsibility as serving officers—although the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made the point about moral responsibility. To grant the IPCC the power to require a retired officer to give evidence simply as a witness would provide the IPCC with greater powers over the public than those available to the police. I think the House would rightly be uncomfortable about that.
Let me again be clear, however: that does not mean that the IPCC cannot or will not investigate retired officers for misconduct or criminality that they might have committed. The IPCC will do that. We are just not providing the IPCC with the power, at this stage, to compel such retired officers to attend an interview as a witness to events on the day or thereafter. Crucially, the IPCC has not asked for that power in relation to the Hillsborough investigation, so the House does not need to rush its consideration of the matter.
I know that many concerns have been expressed in the House and outside that an officer who wants to avoid the repercussions of their actions can simply retire and avoid all sanction, but that is not the case. The IPCC can and will investigate any individual suspected of criminal behaviour. It has the powers it needs to pursue these individuals and bring them to book. For example, the IPCC already has the power to require an individual, serving or retired, who is suspected of misconduct or criminal behaviour to attend an interview. The IPCC can, in appropriate cases, refer a matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions where there is evidence of criminality in relation to Hillsborough.
If an individual is subsequently convicted of a criminal offence, in connection with their service as a police officer, they could lose the majority of their pension. It will be for the relevant police and crime commissioner to apply for this sanction. That is in addition to any penalty ordered by a court. Let me be clear: charges can be brought regardless of the employment status of the individual concerned.
Steve Rotheram
Just for the record, will the Minister clarify something? Criminal behaviour could lead to someone who is serving or who is retired facing a reduction in their pension. What happens if somebody is found guilty not of criminal behaviour, but of wrongdoing? Does the same sanction still apply?
Damian Green
The sanctions apply if someone is convicted of a criminal offence—I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to be clarified. If someone has not been convicted of a criminal offence, matters affecting their pension would, not least, engage human rights legislation as well, so things would be much more difficult in those cases.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I understand the Minister’s point that if someone was guilty of a criminal offence, there would be consequences, but what if someone who was serving and was investigated at the time had been found guilty of not carrying out their duties in an appropriate manner? That would have been a disciplinary matter rather than a criminal matter. Is there any sanction that could apply in those circumstances?
Damian Green
I think we are getting into the realms of speculation about individuals. There is a clear distinction, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, between criminality and pure misconduct. It is clearly difficult to take disciplinary action against someone who is no longer an employee. At the most serious end, many of the Hillsborough cases would potentially involve criminal sanctions, but too detailed speculation on these matters might be unhelpful in the long run, not least to the families and others seeking justice as well as truth.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Where there is a need to gather sufficient evidence to decide whether a retired individual should be the subject of an investigation for misconduct or criminality, does the Bill contain sufficient powers to enable that evidence to be gathered?
Damian Green
The IPCC already has considerable powers to gather evidence, and it is not the only body involved in these investigations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is looking at whether to apply to reopen the inquest, so a coroner may be involved as well. There will therefore be thorough investigation, and I would be surprised and disappointed if any avenue of inquiry fell through the cracks. As much as can be done in the investigation is being done and will be done.
The overall point I would like to reassure the House about is that where individuals are suspected of misconduct or criminality, the IPCC has the powers it needs, so clause 1 is solely about its powers relating to witnesses. The power is essential if the IPCC investigation is to maintain public confidence and show that it has left no stone unturned—precisely the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made. Information from witnesses will ensure that the IPCC investigation has a broad and thorough evidence base.
As we have discussed, the sanctions carry real weight for serving officers. It would not be appropriate to extend that to retired officers at this time. I should perhaps repeat that I fully expect the vast majority of retired officers called as witnesses to attend willingly. The importance of the matters being considered would cause any decent human being to provide whatever assistance they could. However, we want to ensure that the IPCC has the clear statutory basis to be able, independently and authoritatively, to require serving officers who may have useful information for the purposes of the investigation—because they witnessed events—to attend an interview. This power is needed urgently. The IPCC is currently scoping its investigation, but it wants to make rapid progress, and I know that many people inside and outside the House want that as well. It plans to start calling witnesses early in the new year, so this power needs to be available to it by then if the investigation is not to be held up.
Clause 2 will allow the IPCC to investigate matters that were previously subject to investigation by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. This power will be exercised only when the IPCC is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of a case justify its use. That is a high threshold. The IPCC has made it clear to me that, without this power, certain key events of the Hillsborough disaster would be out of scope of its investigation, as they have previously been considered by the PCA. In particular, the PCA investigated the decisions to open exit gate C at the Leppings Lane end of the Hillsborough ground and not to close the tunnel. Without this additional power, those matters would be out of scope of the IPCC investigation, although it is clear that those two decisions were critical to the events of the day.
So this power is needed, but it needs to be tightly drawn. We need to avoid the prospect of opening up all previous PCA investigations for review. That is why the power provides the IPCC with the discretion to reopen previously investigated cases when the matter meets the test of “exceptional circumstances”. We are confident that that terminology ensures that investigations relating to Hillsborough can be reopened, while also setting a high enough bar to prevent all PCA cases from being subject to another investigation.
Stephen Mosley
The IPCC states in its briefing note, to which the Minister has referred, that there should be powerful public interest involvement if it is to reopen a case. Does he agree that that should be the case?
Damian Green
I do. As I have said, it is for the IPCC to define “exceptional circumstances”, but clearly a powerful public interest would be one example. New evidence would potentially be another. The circumstances would be of that kind of order. In serious cases, a powerful public interest or the production of new evidence would enable the IPCC to say that the hurdle had been overcome.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that the Orgreave incident represents a case in which these powers might be useful?
Damian Green
It is for the IPCC to decide such questions. The I stands for “Independent”, so it is not for Ministers to stand here and tell the IPCC how to define its role or the powers that we give it. It is for us to give it the powers, but it must define how best to use them. So, if the hon. Lady will permit me, I will leave that to the IPCC to decide. It will decide such questions in that case and in any other, and it is right that the decision should sit with it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the start of the debate. The Minister has talked about reopening investigations that have already been looked into by the Police Complaints Authority. Given the number of officers who were persuaded to change their statements and the scale of the cover-up, does he envisage that those issues will be covered by this provision in the Bill?
Damian Green
The previous Government passed a perfectly sensible piece of legislation when setting up the IPCC to prevent it from becoming a body that would investigate every controversial police case that had been investigated by its predecessor body. The reason for including this provision in the Bill is that the IPCC has told the Government very firmly that it needs the power to investigate a case that has already been investigated by the PCA, for the reasons that I have given relating to what happened on that day, and that it wants the high hurdle of “exceptional circumstances” to be set. One element that would enable it to get over that high hurdle would be the arrival of significant new evidence in a public interest case. As the hon. Gentleman says, the fact that there is evidence of statements having been altered on an industrial scale certainly hits the target as far as new evidence is concerned.
John Mann
To clarify, if during the IPCC’s investigations into Hillsborough, it comes across other major events that might not be in the public domain at all yet might give some indication not of what happened at Hillsborough or how it happened, but of why certain things happened, will it be able to look into or pass on relevant information at a future stage? In other words, can the IPCC look at things that are not directly related to Hillsborough but that come out as reasons for actions that are, on the face of it, unrelated but could be worthy of investigation in themselves?
Damian Green
Again, it will be a matter for the IPCC to decide what to do with the evidence it finds. Inevitably, in this kind of investigation, the evidence it finds will be public. I think I can see where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go. As I say, the IPCC has considerable powers of investigation and it could make things public that might enable someone to make a complaint, at which point it would have to decide whether its powers were sufficient or whether its new powers conferred under this Bill could be triggered. The underlying point is that the IPCC is independent: it is for the IPCC to decide what best to do with the evidence it finds during the course of its investigations.
The Bill is narrow in scope, but crucial to the process of achieving justice for the 96 individuals who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, for those who were injured and for the families and friends of all involved.
Steve Rotheram
I thank the Minister for his patience again, but I am certain that he must understand the nervousness on Merseyside when this particular issue goes through this House. I know, because I have spoken to him, that the Minister is fully aware of and appreciates the current situation of Anne Williams, whose online e-petition reached over 100,000 signatures some weeks ago. Will he assure us that none of the investigations that will be carried out through the additional powers of the Bill will in any way impact on the time scale of the new inquests? Will he say more about his latest expectations regarding the timing of the application to the High Court to quash the original unsound verdicts?
Damian Green
On the first point, I know that the IPCC is extremely aware of the desire for things not to appear to be unduly delayed. Indeed, that is one reason why we are here today—to put a Bill through all its stages in one day, which shows that the House and the Government are trying to speed the process up as much as we can.
On the application to the High Court, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is proceeding as fast as he can, and I think a decision will be made public very shortly. I can go no further than that, but the hon. Gentleman’s wider point is well made, and I absolutely take it. I am very conscious that people want to see that this process, having started after the report, is not unduly delayed at any stage. I am very keen, as I know are many other people who have been involved from the start, that that should happen.
That explains why the House should not today consider the wider reform of the IPCC, although we will examine whether there are other gaps in its powers. We have asked it what tools it needs to progress its investigations into Hillsborough, and this short Bill will ensure that it has the two additional powers for which it asked. The Bill thus represents an important step on the road from truth to justice for Hillsborough. All who support that aim will, I hope, support this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I must now announce the result of the deferred Division on the draft order amending schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Ayes were 288 and the Noes were 213, so the Question was agreed to.
I must also announce the result of the deferred Division on the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012. The Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 213, so the Question was agreed to.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It will not be news to anybody in this House how serious the Hillsborough disaster was. It is still the worst tragedy in British sporting history. The shocking revelations of deception, blame and injustice have resonated with football fans and many others around the world. The 96 people paid an awful price and we are still learning from it today. I hope that Parliament will at last ensure that we learn the harsh lessons of the last 23 years through this vital legislation.
I will not go through the details of what happened because they have been eloquently expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members who have much closer links to these events, and the unacceptable acts of manipulation and self-interest by the police forces involved in the disaster have been covered extensively in the media. It is clear from the Hillsborough independent panel report that the extent of the loss of life can be attributed to multiple failures in the emergency services and other public bodies that were charged with the safety of the public on that occasion.
We have to accept the reality that South Yorkshire and West Midlands police, as well as other emergency services, made “strenuous attempts” to deflect the blame for the crush on to the victims. The report stated clearly that 116 of 164 police statements were
“amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to”
South Yorkshire police. I know that the whole House would agree that that is clearly unacceptable.
For the victims of the catastrophe who have seen decades pass without justice, it is essential that we act to ensure that the systems put in place to protect the public can no longer place themselves above that duty. It is therefore critical that we reform the IPCC. There are two issues. First, the changes proposed in this Bill, which I support, will, we hope, help the Hillsborough investigation, although I have a couple of concerns that I will raise in a moment.
Secondly, there is a need for broader reform of the IPCC. There is much concern among the public that it does not always act sufficiently independently, that it does not take up enough cases and that it is not able to investigate cases as well as it needs to. I am pleased that the Minister has made it clear that he will consider carefully the work that the Home Affairs Committee is doing to look more broadly at the IPCC. There are a number of points that I hope he will look at. I have already raised the issue of those who operate in quasi-policing roles. The former chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, has said that
“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”
The Minister has said that he will have an open mind in looking at those issues. I hope that he will take action on quasi-policing roles.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill entirely. We are delighted that it also has the support of organisations such as Liberty, which rightly states that there should be due process for police officers. However, there are a number of issues that are not quite clear and I would be grateful if the Minister could reiterate his position on them. The first is what will happen to police officers who are required to attend an interview but who refuse to answer questions at it. Everybody has the right not to answer questions and not to self-incriminate, but there is a question about whether there is a duty on somebody who is still an employee to answer questions. The Home Affairs Committee report, which we concluded yesterday in time for this debate, states at recommendation 10:
“We note that refusal to attend an interview may result in misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings, but that there is no sanction for refusal to answer questions. We expect that chief constables will indicate to their forces that such uncooperative behaviour would be considered to be at odds with the spirit of professional duty.”
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his interpretation, too, and that he will encourage chief constables to make that clear more broadly.
There is still the issue, which I raised with the Minister earlier, of former police officers. He pointed out, and others confirmed it, that they would have a moral obligation to co-operate. That is definitely right—we would like former police officers to take part—but I am not clear what would happen if the unfortunate occurred, and some police officers did not agree to co-operate and that caused a fundamental problem with the investigation. I hope that the Minister will consider what happens if that becomes a problem.
Damian Green
In the middle of that section of his speech, the hon. Gentleman moved from retired police officers to police officers. Did he mean retired police officers?
Dr Huppert
I am sorry; I meant former police officers who do not have to attend an interview and decide not to do so, and that becomes a problem. I hope that the Minister will consider, obviously with much reluctance, whether we need to do anything else to ensure justice. I thank him for correcting me if I misspoke.
I hope that the Bill will be passed quickly, and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ comments today.
Damian Green
With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate. I am grateful to all those who have contributed and helped us to make progress towards ensuring that justice will follow truth. It is important for the House to consider all the issues and questions that the introduction of this Bill has raised. Members of this House have shown great commitment in driving us closer to getting the IPCC investigation under way. The point has been well made by the shadow Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and others that people do not want more talk. They simply want to see the changes that will unlock justice.
We have twin responsibilities in this House: we have to ensure that progress is made after such a long wait for the truth, but we also have a parliamentary responsibility to ensure that the Bill that passes through the House is appropriate and fit for purpose. I think that today we will meet both those responsibilities. I am grateful for the support from hon. Members on both sides in getting through all the business in a short time. The Bill will enable the IPCC to conduct a comprehensive, painstaking and, above all, transparent investigation. Transparency has perhaps not been mentioned enough, but it is important that what the IPCC uncovers should be transparent.
Let me address the individual points that have been made today. I shall start with those of the right hon. Member for Delyn. He asked about consultation with the families. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met representatives of the Hillsborough family groups on 18 October and, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, Home Office officials continue to be in regular contact with the groups and will write to them again following today’s debate. The Home Secretary has also asked the Bishop of Liverpool to continue to act as the Government’s adviser on Hillsborough. His close relationship with the families will obviously be very beneficial.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), asked about a single lead investigator, as did the shadow Minister. There are legal and constitutional constraints that would prevent the appointment of a single investigator to investigate Hillsborough. Each of the bodies involved, and the processes relating to them, are independent under laws passed by this House. However, I am conscious of the need for the various investigatory bodies, independent though they might be, to work closely together. The IPCC and the Director of Public Prosecutions are working closely together, and with others who have responsibility for investigating those who cannot be the subject of IPCC investigations. Discussions are continuing on how to approach any aspects of the investigation that cannot be covered by the IPCC. I was also asked about the time scale. A decision on that will be made very early next year. We are moving ahead with that as fast as possible.
Steve Rotheram
The Minister has mentioned our questions about a lead investigator. According to paragraph 9 on page 3 of the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was published today, the Committee is recommending
“that a single, lead investigator should be identified”.
How much consideration will he give to that report?
Damian Green
As I have said, I can see where the demand is coming from, and I have read the Home Affairs Select Committee report. There are, however, very good reasons for what I have said about this, which I am sure hon. Members will understand. Given the constitutional independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the IPCC, there could not be any attempt to direct them, especially the DPP. It would be improper in all senses for a chief investigator, let alone a Home Office Minister, to direct him and tell him what to do. It would certainly be constitutionally improper as well, so there are genuine difficulties involved in going down that route. I assume that the underlying drive behind the request for such an investigator is the need to ensure that people do not go off in different directions or fail to talk to each other, thereby causing unnecessary delay through a lack of coherence among the various strands that hon. Members have talked about. Everyone involved is aware of that; I know they are doing their best to make sure that they proceed as much as possible in parallel.
The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me about engagement with the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I have already had an exchange of correspondence with both bodies; indeed, my officials spoke to them before the Bill was published. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said at one stage that we should have consulted formally, but that would have taken 10 or 12 weeks, so it would clearly have been impossible. Inevitably, there has not been a lot of time between getting the Bill right and publishing it. Of necessity, then, the consultation with the bodies was done relatively shortly before we proceeded. I sensed the House’s pressure to get on with this, and that is what we are doing.
Damian Green
I already have in my diary a meeting with the Police Federation next week, and I would be happy to meet the Police Superintendents Association at any time.
There has been a lot of discussion about retired officers—not least by the shadow policing Minister, but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). As I have said, former officers are civilians—not police officers—and they are no longer bound by the duties and regulations that governed their lives as serving officers. The police themselves do not have powers to compel witnesses to attend interviews, so I can only repeat that to grant this power to the IPCC would be unusual in the extreme. However, given the seriousness of the allegations being considered by the IPCC in the Hillsborough case, I repeat that the IPCC has made it clear that it will fully conclude investigations for both criminality and misconduct even when officers have left the service.
This is an unusual step. The IPCC does not normally investigate retired officers for misconduct, but it is clear in this case that there is an enormous and legitimate public demand, reflected by Members of all parties, for that to happen. That is what the IPCC was going to do. During its investigation, the IPPC will no doubt call retired officers to provide evidence. As we all agree, the retired officers will understand the importance of this investigation, and I am sure that the vast majority, if not all of them, will attend willingly.
Finally, the IPCC has been clear that it needs these powers only in respect of serving officers. That is what the Bill provides for. I understand the calls to grant a power to compel retired officers to give evidence, but because it is so unusual and because it would be such a powerful tool, I think it would be inappropriate to do this through fast-track legislation. That should be considered when it comes to the possibility of future legislation.
Mr George Howarth
I understand the Minister’s point that making a change such as this in fast-track legislation might not be appropriate, but can he give a commitment that, should it become apparent later that there is a reluctance on the part of retired officers to come forward, some further action could be taken by this House to bring in an element of compulsion?
Damian Green
What I will say is that we are debating this Bill here today because the IPPC came to the Government and said, “We need extra powers.” We have responded as quickly as possible so as not to delay the move from truth to justice. We are always willing to accept representations from the IPCC and to consider what is the most practical way of allowing it to do its job as efficiently as possible.
The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me about a related subject, namely the retirement of officers during an investigation. The IPCC can continue an investigation into either criminal or misconduct matters even when an officer has chosen to retire in the middle of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by that. He also asked about private contractors. Contractors working as detention and escort officers already fall under the IPCC’s oversight, and are therefore covered by the Bill. We are considering the need to extend the provision to other kinds of contractor. That is not relevant to events that took place in 1989, because there were no private contractors then, but we will consider the issue in the longer term, along with the IPCC.
I was asked when the IPCC investigation would conclude. I think that everyone recognises that it is a huge, complex, far-reaching investigation, and that it will take time for it to conclude thoroughly. The last thing we want is an investigation that is not carried out thoroughly. The IPCC will set out the scope and projected timings in the new year. As well as meeting my officials, it has been meeting the families and their representatives, and will continue to do so in order to ensure that they are in the loop at all times.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked about sanctions. As we are about to debate that subject, I shall not intrude on your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will say that we have not expressly provided for a sanction for failing to comply with a witness attendance requirement because effective sanctions are already available under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. I shall doubtless say more about that shortly, when we discuss amendment 1.
Let me again thank the Opposition, and Members in all parts of the House, who have spoken today and expressed their support for the Bill. I hope that the constructive manner and tone that have characterised the debate will serve as a reassurance, not least to the families of the victims, that the House is working well to try to help them as much as possible. I look forward to the Bill’s remaining stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Police (Complaints And Conduct) Bill
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The Bill is about giving powers to the IPCC to compel officers to give evidence. If officers do not give evidence because they choose not to do so—in discussions with us, the Police Federation gave examples of circumstances where officers may not wish to do so—the IPCC will not be able to take forward the investigations as it wishes in relation to Hillsborough, which is my hon. Friend’s main concern at present. However, the legislation is in place for all time, until it is repealed.
If there are no sanctions, an officer could retreat into their shell. The sanctions that the Minister outlined to me privately are available to the force, but who takes the decision on such sanctions? Would it be appropriate for a police and crime commissioner to learn about the case from constituents or through representations from the MP and to take decisions? Or is it solely a chief constable matter? I pose those questions for debate.
I share the wish for a strong examination of the point made by the hon. Member for City of Chester, supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed the amendment, because the question of what happens when an officer says no is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill. The Minister needs to give a strong assurance that that issue will not cause difficulties with the Hillsborough investigation or for future investigations into matters of concern yet to arise, involving a particular force in a particular area.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The amendment seeks to make express provision, on the face of the Bill, for sanctions in relation to a failure to attend an interview. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and other members of the all-party group for tabling it. As the shadow Police Minister has just said, it airs an important issue. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that such a provision is not needed because the Secretary of State already has the power under the Police Act 1996 to make regulations about misconduct. The effect of the amendment, were it put into law, would be to duplicate a regulation-making power that already exists in the 1996 Act.
I absolutely support the need for an effective sanction for non-attendance. Various suggestions have been made about how we should convey this to those who will have to operate the sanction. I am fairly sure that this discussion will be important in conveying the will of Parliament to those who do that. I must resist the temptation of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that I should write to chief constables telling them in detail what they should do. That would be the classic interference in operational matters that we seek to avoid, for obvious reasons.
I am satisfied that, in relation to serving officers, an effective sanction for failing to comply with the witness attendance requirement in clause 1 already exists. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 include a provision to the effect that misconduct means a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour. A failure to attend an interview, where required to do so, would be a breach of one or more of the prescribed standards, with the result that the officer should become the subject of misconduct proceedings. Those would be serious misconduct proceedings and could result in the officer’s dismissal.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister has explained the procedures. If he will not write to chief constables to tell them what the disciplinary action should be, I take it that they will be made aware of exactly what is intended and what he has just said.
Damian Green
Absolutely. As I have said, I think that chief constables will be following this debate with some interest.
To answer one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the draft regulations for the Bill do not include that sanction, because we are clear that it can be imposed under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. Of course, we are in continuing talks with the IPCC about the regulations. To answer his other point, it is right that responsibility for matters relating to discipline and the misconduct of serving officers rests with chief officers. They are the people who should deal with that.
Damian Green
The police and crime commissioner is there to hold the chief officer to account. If they believe that the chief officer is behaving wrongly, they will have a discussion about it, and because the commissioner is elected, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester rightly said, any sensible chief officer would inevitably wish to avoid a public dispute. The point is that the chief officer takes the operational decisions and the police and crime commissioner holds them to account for their effect. His basic question was who was responsible for enforcing the discipline and misconduct regulations, and the answer is the chief officer.
Bill Esterson
I do not want to stray too far into the role of police and crime commissioners, but if a police and crime commissioner has a conversation with a chief constable because they are unhappy about that, or anything else for that matter, what power will the commissioner have to enforce that provision?
Damian Green
Police and crime commissioners have very significant powers in relation to chief constables. Their ultimate power is to dismiss the chief constable if they believe that they are behaving so badly that that ultimate sanction is necessary, so the legislation provides considerable powers.
My main point is that the effect of this change will simply be to replicate powers that are already provided for in statute, but it is also important to note that clause 1 places a witness attendance requirement on different categories of individuals. It applies not only to serving police officers, who are members of police forces and subject to the conduct regulations, but to police staff, who operate under a different conduct regime and are outside the scope of the conduct regulations. As such, it would be neither appropriate nor effective for the Secretary of State to make regulations for a universal sanction applying to those two very different categories of individual.
In clause 1, we have been careful to mirror, as far as possible, the existing provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 relating to the interview attendance requirement for those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC. As such, the two powers should be similar. The existing provisions in the 2002 Act relating to those under investigation do not include any provision for sanctions. To provide expressly for a sanction in primary legislation in relation to witnesses but not to those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC would be anomalous. Such a provision would suggest that the new power relating to witnesses is somehow of greater importance and should be more robust than the existing power relating to suspects, and that position risks falling into confusion, as the right hon. Member for Delyn rightly warned, when we want clarity. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the amendment; there would be more confusion than clarity. In any case, the Secretary of State has the power to do that.
Let me address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). If a serving officer refuses to attend an IPCC interview, they should be subject to sanctions, which are serious and could result in dismissal. If the officer continues to refuse to attend, they can still be investigated by the IPCC and, where appropriate, charges can still be brought regardless of whether they attended an interview or refused to do so. Therefore, failure to attend the interview is not a way of avoiding the decisions of the IPCC. Such a failure would be a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour, and the officer would rightly become the subject of misconduct proceedings.
The final, overarching point in reply to the hon. Lady’s questions is that the IPCC is an investigatory body. It has not asked for the power to impose sanctions, nor is it particularly well-equipped to exercise that power; it is there to investigate. Having said that, I recognise that we are all anxious to ensure that there is clarity on the availability of an effective sanction.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I do not have the information in front of me, but my impression is that the IPCC did ask for sanctions.
Damian Green
I have spoken to the IPPC, and it clearly stated that it did not want sanctions to be included in the Bill for some of the reasons that I have given. While I am certain that there is no need to amend the Bill, I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that I will continue to discuss the matter with the IPCC to see whether it needs any longer-term changes. In making any changes to regulations, we need to take a consistent approach in terms of sanctions on those who fail to attend as a witness or as a suspect.
Alison McGovern
So that we can absolutely clear, and as the Minister is, I am sure, in constant conversation with the IPCC, will he write to me, as chair of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster, to confirm that point?
Damian Green
I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady, as indeed I have written to the IPPC. I will send her a copy of that letter so that everyone knows that the position is absolutely clear and that we are all saying the same things in all forums.
If my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester will agree to withdraw his amendment, I assure him and the Committee that we will continue to examine this question further to ensure that the effectiveness of the procedure is maintained as much as possible.
Damian Green
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Members will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain them for long, because they have heard what I need to say. More importantly, there is broad agreement about the Bill’s urgency and importance. I hope that I have answered the questions raised during this good and detailed discussion. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill next Tuesday. We have considered some important matters today, such as those relating to retired officers and the sanctions available should a serving officer fail to comply, and I hope that Members of all parties who are concerned about those issues are now content.
This short Bill raises important questions, because the underlying issues are extremely important. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. and right hon. Members of all parties for the Bill, which will allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission to get on with its investigations and finally achieve justice for the 96 victims of the disaster, the many injured and all the families and friends affected by the tragedy.
Leveson Inquiry
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
We have heard many thoughtful contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and I am sorry that I may not be able to do justice to all of them in the time available to me.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling on these issues both in the House and more widely among the victims of phone hacking and the public. As Lord Justice Leveson noted, some of the behaviour of the press has “wreaked havoc” with the lives of innocent people and
“can only be called outrageous”.
The central issues of this debate—press regulation and the relationships between the press and the police or politicians—are central to the confidence that people have both in how the country is run and that the rule of law is being upheld with impartiality and integrity.
As the shadow Police Minister has just said, there has been a degree of consensus across the House tonight. I am glad that the official Opposition have moved from the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Leveson recommendations should be accepted in their entirety, to the position that the shadow Police Minister stated: that he would accept the core recommendations. That is a sensible move.
As Lord Justice Leveson pointed out when publishing his report, the relationship between the police and the public is central in our system of policing by consent. The media have a vital role to play in facilitating this relationship, but there is a trust that goes with that role. That trust has been damaged and needs to be repaired as quickly and effectively as possible.
On the central issue of media regulation, as the Prime Minister made clear on Thursday, we accept completely the central principles of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, namely that an independent regulatory body should be established, and it should be a body that is independent both in its appointments and its funding; it should set out a code of standards by which the press have to live; it should provide an accessible arbitration service for dispute resolution; it should provide a mechanism for rapid complaints handling; and it should have the power to impose million-pound fines where there have been flagrant breaches of the code. The culture change that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) mentioned is certainly needed.
Mr Slaughter
What system is the Minister going to put in place to give victims of the press protection in costs—is it Leveson or something else? Does the Minister agree that this will need legislation? What is his vehicle for that—is it the Defamation Bill or something else?
Damian Green
I will come on to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, if he can be patient.
The Prime Minister made it clear that we have serious concerns and misgivings that the recommendation to underpin this body in statute may be misleading. Such concerns were echoed by hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). They were also echoed with inimitable eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). We should be wary—this House is wary—of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. That point was also made eloquently by the hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). We should be wary about whether legislation is truly necessary on this point.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in opening the debate, it is right that we should take the time to look at the details. I agree with many of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) made a good point in saying that many of the failures were breaches of the criminal law; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) was right to warn against regulatory creep in these things; and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was exactly right in saying that the ball is in the press’s court now, that they have to take the immediate decisions and that it is up to them.
Zac Goldsmith
I am just wondering whether I misheard my right hon. Friend. For the record, I made the case that I do not believe that effective regulation will be possible without legislation. I will send him a copy of the Hansard record of my speech later.
Damian Green
I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech carefully and I thought he made it clear that he had misgivings—that is the point I was making. If he does not have misgivings, I apologise to him.
Obviously, further cross-party discussion will be needed on this and some of the other recommendations, particularly on the proposed changes to the Data Protection Act. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that the Leveson proposals were pretty inadequate on data protection and its effect on investigative journalism, and I assume that that lies behind the nuanced change in the Opposition’s position. It is important that we look at these proposals carefully, particularly in the context of the negotiations on the broader European Union framework to which the Data Protection Act gives effect.
Lord Leveson himself said that these changes need to be considered with great care and he also admitted that this was something that had not been aired extensively during the inquiry or received much scrutiny generally. I believe that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made that point very well. We agree that this matter needs careful analysis. We must not make haste to amend the Data Protection Act only to find that responsible investigative journalism, holding the rich and powerful to account, is unduly hampered because of some wide-reaching amendments, even ones made with good intentions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) talked about how the press had helped him in his council work on child protection. Several hon. Members spoke eloquently and passionately about the effects on their local community of press malpractice. They included the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will return to the House on all these issues following the cross-party discussions.
Some specific questions were raised in the debate. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked about the timetable for decisions, and we look forward to the press coming forward with their new proposals after tomorrow’s meeting. People have said that we should not delay; the meeting with editors is actually happening tomorrow. Lord Hunt has suggested a timetable that starts this week with that meeting and proposals that will come in the early months of next year.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) asked about the LASPO Act changes and defamation. We believe that good cases can still be brought after the LASPO reforms come in, but we clearly want to ensure access to justice for those such as the Dowlers who may feel that they have been denied it in the past. That is why we have referred the matter to the Civil Justice Council. That is the appropriate body to consider the details of the proposals, which are both important and complex.
I agree with the shadow Police Minister that although most of the debate has been about press regulation, the issues around the police and their handling of the investigations into phone hacking as well as their relationship with the media and police integrity more widely are equally central to the debate—
Damian Green
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman —[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Let me talk about the police first, and then I will certainly deal with his point.
I welcome the fact that Lord Justice Leveson has noted that he has not seen any evidence that corruption by the press in relation to the police is a widespread problem. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) about particular instances, but it is also important to note what Lord Leveson said about this matter. In particular, I want to emphasise two additional points.
First, the Government believe that Lord Leveson’s analysis of the issues and problems with the police is correct, but as he notes, it is very important for the scale of the problem to be kept in proportion. The vast majority of police officers in this country maintain standards of the highest integrity and they also often need to maintain a relationship with both local and national media in order to do their jobs properly. There is no place in our police forces, however, for those who do not meet those high standards or who abuse their relationship with the media. We will ensure that there is no longer any place for them in the police.
Secondly—
Damian Green
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he stops standing up—[Interruption.] I want to deal with the police first.
Secondly, there is a much-changed policing landscape since the issues highlighted by Lord Justice Leveson came to light. He recognises not only that, but the continuing improvements that are being made. We have created the college of policing to drive up police standards across the board and it will have a particular focus on working to ensure police integrity—[Interruption.] I feel sorry for those Labour Members who do not regard police integrity as important. They are completely out of touch with what the public want.
Police and crime commissioners are now in place to hold chief constables and their forces to account on behalf of local people and to ensure that they meet the high standards that people demand—[Interruption.] Apparently, Labour Members are also not interested in democracy, unlike the various Labour police and crime commissioners I met earlier today.
On the failings identified in the operational decisions made by the police in their investigations into phone hacking, there is now a new senior leadership team in place in the Metropolitan police to play its part in taking forward the report’s recommendations.
Damian Green
The Irish system has not been in place for very long and it is impossible to claim all the virtues for it that the Opposition wish to claim. It is sensible for discussions to continue on the points on which there has been widespread consensus in the House this evening, and jumping immediately into another system would be the wrong way to go about this.
Damian Green
The hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, talks about 70 years but the Leveson report was published last Thursday. We are debating it today, a Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting the editors tomorrow and we will produce proposals in the coming months.
We will consider carefully the other recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s report and respond in due course. The Government will ensure that the central principles of Lord Justice Leveson’s report will be taken forward in cross-party talks as quickly and comprehensively as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the Leveson report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.
Police Pensions
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for initiating the debate and for the kind remarks he made about me at the start of his speech. I can confirm that I am already nostalgic for the UK Border Agency. I entirely echo his remarks about the tremendous service that police officers give to their communities and the whole country. As he said, he and I attended the police bravery awards a few weeks ago. It was the first time I had attended, and I was struck dumb by the courage and heroism shown by all the winners. Even more importantly, I know from my own experience as a constituency MP, as well as from other experiences I have had as police Minister, how that kind of service is provided on a daily basis across the country.
This afternoon, I would like to clarify the Government’s approach to public service pension reform as a whole, as well as what it means for police officers. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, these are difficult economic times and we have to take difficult decisions, but we have equally made it clear that we are committed to reaching a fair outcome for police officers, and I hope to explain why I believe that that has been achieved. In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman enjoined me to listen to the comments made by a number of organisations.
I should start by reminding the House of the context for pension reform. From the outset, we have been candid about the need for a fundamental review of public service pensions and of how they are funded and maintained. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor invited Lord Hutton to chair the independent public service pensions commission. As a member of the previous Government and a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Lord Hutton was well placed to undertake an independent and comprehensive review. He did a thorough job and made a compelling case for change. As he set out in his findings, the costs of public service pensions have increased over recent years, mainly because people are living longer, and the increasing costs have fallen largely to the taxpayer.
The Government are committed to providing good occupational pensions for public servants, but we must do so in a way that is affordable, sustainable and fair both to those workers and other taxpayers. That means, across the public services, moving to the career-average pension model in place of final-salary schemes. That also involves increasing the contributions that workers pay for their own pensions and raising the retirement age. The Public Service Pensions Bill, which is currently before the House, sets out the high-level framework for those reforms, with work force and scheme-specific details to be implemented through regulations in due course.
To put all that in context, the latest figures from police forces show that, in the 2011-12 financial year, across England and Wales more than £2.8 billion was paid out in police pensions. Such pensions are paid to retired officers who have a legal entitlement to receive them. I hope that gives Members a sense of the scale of the issues and finances involved.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about police pension contributions. It is true that police officers pay among the highest contributions in the public services. That is because the pension is significantly more valuable than most others, as it should be.
As part of his report, Lord Hutton commissioned a comparative analysis of the benefits that workers get out of pension schemes based on what they contribute themselves. He found that, aside from those in the armed forces, who do not contribute to their pensions, police pensions are more valuable than most, as they are generally drawn from an early age and paid for longer in retirement. That is even taking into account the relatively high contributions paid by police officers.
I was struck by the verdict of Police Mutual, an independent financial adviser that specialises in services for the police. Its assessment, in response to the increased contribution rate, states that
“the Police Pension Scheme remains one of the best financial investments you are ever likely to make.”
People should listen to Police Mutual, because it knows whereof it speaks.
While I am on that subject, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) that the new scheme does not have a service requirement, so female officers will not be disadvantaged for taking career breaks.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister for bringing that information to the House’s attention. Police Mutual may have a vested interest, because it deals with such financial affairs and might benefit in some way. I do not know the organisation’s position, but the organisations that have spoken to us are clear that their members will be affected. The Minister is new to his position, and he is not responsible for this. He did not write the Winsor review. He has just become the Police Minister, and he has to work with the police for the two-and-a-half years at least that he has this job. Will he agree to meet the representatives—the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others—again to discuss one more time the effects that the changes will have on their members? If he agrees to do that, he will get a better impression of what is going on.
Damian Green
I constantly meet not only police officers in my constituency who wish to discuss this but, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the fed and the supers. This item is clearly on that agenda, and I am happy to reassure him that I will continue to discuss it. I will come on to what the federation said in a second.
We have maintained throughout the process that police officers deserve to be treated with respect and even-handedness. We have worked hard with partners in policing to reach a fair outcome that recognises the particular nature of a police officer’s work. That is why we asked Tom Winsor to reflect on Lord Hutton’s findings and consider some of the issues in the context of his independent review.
Mr MacNeil
The Minister speaks about fairness and even-handedness, but does he agree that, to give fairness and even-handedness, full flexibility on pensions should be given to the Scottish Government, as the Scottish Police Federation wants?
Damian Green
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has this afternoon made a statement on his intention to take forward such issues in Scotland. I hope the hon. Gentleman will go away and reflect on what the Scottish Cabinet Secretary said.
Mrs Main
The Minister was helpfully explaining why female police officers will not be disadvantaged, but female police officers have told me that the career-average scheme will disadvantage them, and I am concerned about that. Will the Minister explain that point a little more fully?
Damian Green
There is no service requirement, but we could discuss that for the rest of the time available. I would more than happily have that conversation with my hon. Friend offline.
Tom Winsor agreed with Lord Hutton that a normal pension age of 60 is appropriate for police officers. Given the findings of the two independent reviews, the Government believe there is a strong and coherent case for the framework, which will be in place from April 2015.
The Police Federation has been mentioned a lot, and having engaged in the process that followed those reviews, it confirmed that it accepts the outcome as the “best deal possible” for police officers in the context of the reform across public service pensions. Paul McKeever, chair of the Police Federation and the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board said, and I will quote him in full for balance:
“Despite being disappointed with aspects of this announcement, Staff Side accepts it within the context of the Government’s wider public service pensions reform agenda. It is clear from our discussions with the Home Office that, compared to the reference scheme offered by the Home Secretary of 27 March, this was the best deal possible to protect the unique position of police officers.”
The right hon. Member for Leicester East asked me to listen to the Police Federation, and I do in that regard.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to listen to ACPO. The ACPO lead for reward and recognition, Chief Constable Simon Ash, said:
“The changes to the Police Pension Regulations by the Home Office are broadly supported by ACPO, who have worked constructively with other stakeholders since March to ensure that the best possible balance is achieved for longer term reform whilst providing sufficient transitional arrangements.”
The degree of consensus is often under-recognised. The right hon. Gentleman set out the general picture, but nevertheless both ACPO and the Police Federation have accepted the proposal. There is much of the detail still to arrange for new pension arrangements to be in place for 2015. Obviously, we will maintain the dialogue to make those arrangements work.
The deal means that the normal pension age for police officers will be 60. Aside from the armed forces and firefighters, other public service workers will have a higher normal pension age linked to the state pension age, which is 65 rising over time to 68. That means that police officers will continue to retire earlier than most others, reflecting the nature of the work they do.
We have heard today that some officers are concerned about the prospect of working to 60, but the evidence shows that the average age of those joining the police in recent years is 26. The current open pension scheme—the 2006 scheme—has a 35-year accrual period, so many officers will already be working beyond 60 to accrue a full pension. I recognise that that is a genuine concern for some officers. The framework, therefore, includes flexibility for officers to retire from 55 with an immediate pension and an actuarial reduction linked to the normal pension age of 60.
The increased flexibility of the career-average model also means that there is no cap on the amount of benefits that can be accrued. Under current arrangements for police officers, benefits are capped after 30 or 35 years, depending on the pension scheme. Under the reform framework, there is no cap, so years worked beyond age 60 would provide an enhanced pension.
We are protecting accrued rights for police officers for pension built up by 2015, as we are for all public servants. Most police officers are members of the 1987 scheme, which is a complex scheme that includes uneven periods of pension accrual, so we have developed tailored arrangements to reflect that, thus honouring the Government’s commitment to protect accrued rights and to give police officers a fair outcome.
The Government also made a commitment to give transitional protection to those who were within 10 years of their current normal pension age on 1 April 2012. That applies across the public services, recognising that those nearest to retirement are likely to have least time to plan for that retirement. Again, the complex design of the 1987 scheme has led us to create specific arrangements. As there is no set pension age under that scheme, we have decided to give protection based on age and length of service. All officers aged 45 at 1 April 2012 will be able to remain in their current scheme rather than moving to the new pension arrangements in 2015. We are also giving protection to those who, at 1 April 2012, were within 10 years of retiring on a full police pension. That will give full protection to a further group of officers, including some who were as young as 38 or 39 at 1 April this year. On top of all that, there is also further tapered protection for those who were within four years of qualifying for full protection, in order to smooth the cliff-edge effect that often happens with pension reforms. That tapering again demonstrates, I hope, that the Government have entered into the process in good faith with a view to finding a fair outcome.
I am conscious that going through the details of pension reform does not make for great parliamentary rhetoric, but it is such a serious issue that detailing it is important. I appreciate as well as anyone the degree of understandable emotion caused by the issue, but the underlying point is that, under the new arrangements, the police pension deal is still one of the best deals on offer. I do not underestimate the level of concern among police officers about pension reform, and it is right that they should have clarity at the earliest opportunity about what it means. Many details of how the reforms will be implemented have still to be decided. I repeat the commitment that the right hon. Gentleman wished me to make: the Government will continue to work with our partners in policing on the issue, including specifically those who represent rank-and-file officers.
Throughout the discussions, we have been committed to reaching a fair outcome for police officers. We have done all that we can to achieve a fair pensions package for police officers that reflects the front-line nature of policing work and protects those closest to retirement. Police officers will continue to retire earlier than most public servants, and will continue to benefit from significant employer contributions on top of their own.
I am grateful to the Police Federation for making it clear that they encourage their members to remain in the scheme and will continue to do so after the proposed reforms. I hope that police officers will be reassured by that eminently sensible advice. It is difficult to envisage another investment that would provide the same guaranteed level of income—
Private Security Industry Regulation (Consultation)
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for criminal information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am today launching a consultation inviting views on the Government’s preferred option for reforming how the private security industry is regulated—a transition to a business regulation regime.
The current arrangements for the regulation of the private security industry in the United Kingdom are set out in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Responsibility for delivering regulation lies with the Security Industry Authority (SIA), a non-departmental public body accountable to the Home Secretary. Following the public bodies review in 2010, the Government concluded that the SIA’s functions should be reformed. The consultation provides a detailed proposal for a new regulatory regime for the private security industry.
We would welcome a wide response to the consultation to help ensure that we have identified all the relevant issues, so that the proposed reforms are implemented in an effective and efficient way. We particularly seek the views of those across the UK who work within the industry, those who buy, supply and rely on the provision of private security, as well as law enforcement partners.
A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the House Library and is available on the Home Office website at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/private-security-regulation/.
Oral Answers to Questions
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
1. What plans he has to increase the uptake of restorative justice.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The Government intend to publish a framework for restorative justice that will improve the victim’s awareness and access to restorative justice. We have also introduced legislation to put restorative justice on to a statutory footing for the first time.
Dr Huppert
I am delighted to see a statutory basis for restorative justice. The Minister is, I hope, aware of the experiments in police-organised restorative justice conferences for victims of serious crime—a study carried out by criminologists from the university of Cambridge from 2001 to 2005—which showed that more than £10 of the costs of crime could be saved for every pound spent on this process. Will he ensure that ring-fenced funding is available for restorative justice, as well as the statutory basis?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are already investing more than £1.5 million to help build capacity in dealing with restorative justice throughout the criminal justice system and, in particular, for pre-sentence restorative justice, which is what his question refers to. I am also delighted to report that over 18,000 police officers have received training in restorative justice techniques. This is contributing to the greater success of our restorative justice measures.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend come and visit Swindon, where we are piloting neighbourhood justice panels, involving the community in making decisions about wrongdoers and having a real sense of control for the first time in relation to crimes that affect a large number of people in my community?
Damian Green
I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend. It is always life-enhancing to go to Swindon—I speak as a fan of Reading football club. He is right that pilots have found that restorative justice is associated with an estimated 14% reduction in the frequency of reoffending and, perhaps even more importantly, that 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice are satisfied with the experience. Since we want to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, that is an extremely encouraging result.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
2. If he will bring forward proposals to ensure that victims of crime receive compensation from those who committed the crime.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
18. What plans he has to reduce the number of young people within the criminal justice system.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
Reducing the number of young people in the criminal justice system continues to be a priority for this Government, and a range of work is going on to prevent youth offending. Youth offending teams play a key role, and cross-Government initiatives such as the troubled families programme, the liaison and diversion programme and the ending gang and youth violence programme demonstrate a co-ordinated approach to this issue.
Steve Brine
The Minister will know that members of the Justice Committee were told on a recent visit to YOI Hindley that breaches frequently occur when young people are released from custody and return to their community, from which they are often excluded by order of the court. That, of course, negatively hits reoffending figures, and the same circle continues to be drawn. Will the Minister work with colleagues across Government to make sure that young offenders leaving the secure estate have far better resettlement plans, as that is one sure-fire way to reduce reoffending?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I look forward to receiving the Select Committee report on this matter, which we are expecting shortly. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are working not only with other Departments, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, but with the Youth Justice Board to ensure that young people have access to suitable accommodation on release from custody. The YJB is also working to improve resettlement on release from custody by encouraging local services to work more collaboratively to ensure that young people have suitable accommodation, which is an essential step in stopping them reoffending.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Under Labour, the number of first-time offenders fell by a third. Does the Minister believe it is realistic to think that that trend can continue when the cuts to local authorities are as deep as they are? He says he has a co-ordinated approach, but what is happening in practice?
Damian Green
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that I do not need to project that things are carrying on in the right direction—they are carrying on in the right direction. In the past year, the number of first-time entrants to the youth justice system has fallen by 20%, from 45,900 to 36,700. I am grateful to her for giving me the chance to give those figures to the House.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
19. What progress he has made in tackling corporate offences of fraud, bribery and money laundering.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The coalition has a clear commitment to tackling corporate offending: we implemented the Bribery Act 2010 from July 2011; we published the “Fighting Fraud Together” strategy, which is led by the National Fraud Authority; we established the Economic Crime Command in 2011, as part of the National Crime Agency; and we introduced provisions on deferred prosecution agreements in England and Wales in the Crime and Courts Bill.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Clearly the infrastructure is in place for prosecuting these offences. Will my right hon. Friend work closely with the Serious Fraud Office to ensure that prosecutions are brought against corporate bodies when offences have been committed?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but of course the SFO acts independently of Government. As I said, the Government take all forms of economic crime seriously and what we can do is provide the SFO and other prosecutorial bodies with the tools they need to carry out their roles. That is why, for example, we introduced clauses to provide for the deferred prosecution agreements, which we think will be a valuable tool. They have tough requirements, such as a financial penalty, reparation for victims and repayments of profits. That kind of practical tool in the hands of the prosecutors will make us much more effective at fighting economic crime.
Mr Speaker
We are ahead of schedule, but the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M Morris) is in his place and we can safely proceed to topical questions.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
T5. Will the Secretary of State urgently review the proposed changes to the Bail Act 1976 contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? In some cases, magistrates will be forced to free defendants who they know will fail to surrender, will commit further offences while on bail and, in some cases, will go on to intimidate witnesses? To make matters worse, as the 2012 Act stands, if those offenders breach their bail conditions, the magistrates’ hands will be tied and they will have no choice but to rebail them. Is this not a ridiculous state of affairs?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The one point on which I will take issue with my hon. Friend is the fact that he talks about magistrates “knowing” that someone will commit an offence in the future. It is reasonably well established in British law that people are innocent until they are proved guilty—
Damian Green
To suggest, as the shadow Justice Secretary is doing from a sedentary position, that he, or a magistrate, knows who will commit a crime in the future seems to me to be an absolute breach of all the traditions of our justice system. Of course, if an offender goes on to commit another offence while on bail, including intimidation of a witness, that offence will be considered in its own right. If it could attract a sentence of imprisonment, the option of remand is still open to magistrates. I think we should stick by the basic tenets of justice.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on the question of payment by results and reoffending, the Secretary of State talked about the importance of evidence. Will he share with the House his assessment of the reasons behind the failure of the Mayor of London’s Project Heron at Feltham?
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
T7. Does the Secretary of State believe that the election of police and crime commissioners on Thursday will help restore public confidence in the way that offences are dealt with in local communities?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend, not least because although they are police and crime commissioners, people may have focused too much on the policing aspect. The crime reduction aspect is at the heart of what these new elected bodies will do, and crime prevention and some of the things that we have been discussing earlier this morning, such as restorative justice, will play a very important part in each locality in improving the criminal justice system and improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. The PCCs will play a significant part in that.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Harassment, threatening behaviour and bullying on social media are all increasing. What training has the Department put in place to enable probation officers, magistrates, judges and the court services to deal with that?
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I rise to oppose the motion. I should like to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) suggested, by outlining the overall context of services for victims of crime, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is just a part. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), has pointed out throughout the important debates on this subject that support for victims and witnesses is a high priority of the Government.
At the beginning of this year, the Government launched a consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, which set out a wide-ranging and ambitious reform package that will see us move from the previous one-size-fits-all model for supporting victims, with priority being given instead to the victims of serious crime, to the most vulnerable and to the most persistently targeted. Our reforms will also see police and crime commissioners using their local knowledge to ensure that victims get the services they need. There will, for example, be an increase in the use of restorative justice. There will also be a new victims code setting out clearly what victims should expect from the criminal justice system—not least that they should always be treated with dignity and respect.
Helen Jones
How is it treating a victim with respect if the children of a homicide victim, for example, could lose their compensation if the parent had worked all his or her life and then been out of work for a short period in the three years before the crime?
Damian Green
I shall come on later in my speech to the individual criticisms made of the changes, if the hon. Lady can be patient.
To return to the overall context, more victims will have the opportunity, through greater use of the victim personal statement, to tell the courts how crime has affected them. There will be compensation for victims of overseas terrorism and, following the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there will be a new victims commissioner—directly to address the point of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—who will present the views of victims clearly, with integrity and with force to Westminster, to Whitehall, to the media and to the public at large.
On top of all this—and more, such as putting funding for rape support centres on a sustainable footing and opening new centres, with more to come where there are gaps in provision; and such as ensuring better support for the victims of human trafficking through a contract let last year with the Salvation Army—we will raise up to £50 million extra from offenders to pay for more and better services for victims. The changes to the victim surcharge came into effect on 1 October, which means revenue will start to be received next spring, building on the success we have had over the past year in raising money for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996—some £800,000 so far, with more to come.
The consultation also set out proposals to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It announced that for victims of overseas terrorism, there would be a scheme for existing victims going back to 2002 and another scheme for future victims. We published the Government response to the consultation in July. In sum, this record demonstrates that we are determined, as we said in the consultation, to get it right and ensure that victims of crime get the help they need to cope with, and recover from, the effects of crime. That is the context.
Damian Green
I was about to come on to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As we understand the criminal injuries compensation scheme, 90% of people who could currently qualify for compensation will no longer do so under the proposed regulations. If that is not correct, will he assure us that all the people who can gain compensation currently will still be able to do so?
Damian Green
Certainly not all of them will, but I am distinctly dubious about the 90% figure. Let me explain why. There are two problems with the scheme as it stands: the policy rationale, which is flawed, and the scheme’s affordability. The policy problem is that the scheme is not currently clear just what a crime of violence is. It allows awards to be paid to people, for example, who have themselves committed violent crimes and to people who, perhaps many months previously, had already recovered from the minor injuries they had received. The Government are clear that in some circumstances where someone has, through no fault of their own, been a victim of a violent crime, it is right to provide financial assistance. That is, I think, something that Governments of all parties have maintained over recent years; we certainly want to do so. We also need to be clear, however, that where people have sustained relatively minor injuries, from which they will recover fairly quickly, small sums are not the best way to help them. Our investment in services, which I set out at the start of my speech, means that quality provision will be available to support victims at the point of need.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On Monday, the all-party group on human trafficking met the chief judge to the tribunal, who said that someone with a broken jaw or a slash to the face that was not considered severe would not be allowed any compensation under the Government’s proposals. How can anyone who has suffered such injuries, particularly a woman in a domestic violence situation, be excluded from compensation under the Minister’s changes?
Damian Green
That would not be the case, under circumstances that I shall explain.
We believe that compensation should be focused on those with serious injuries, and that for relatively minor injuries such as sprained wrists or temporary—I emphasise “temporary”—whiplash, small amounts of compensation many months after the event are simply not an effective use of taxpayers’ money. If a victim who has such injuries still needs practical and emotional support, they will be able to access it.
The draft scheme has been debated in a delegated legislation Committee twice. On both occasions, criticism was levelled at the proposed changes, and it was clear that the criticism was based largely on a misunderstanding of the scheme and its purpose.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that getting rid of tariffs 1 to 5, as proposed by the scheme, will mean that 48% to 50% of victims who currently get compensation will no longer get it? Victims who would be affected would include those with injuries such as fractured cheekbones, dislocated knees, several broken ribs—a result of being kicked while lying on the ground—perforated eardrums, partial deafness, and so on.
Damian Green
The hon. Lady is making the honest mistake of assuming that it is the classes of injuries, rather than how long those injuries persist in causing problems—that is my basic point—that have led to the changes. I will deal with the details of the tariff changes in a moment.
Damian Green
I will give way for the last time, and then make some progress, as I am conscious that many Members want to speak.
Sadiq Khan
I do not want to intervene on the Minister when he is in full flow, but is it not correct that there are 17,700 cases a year in bands 1 to 5, none of which will be eligible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme under the proposals? He calls such cases minor, but they include permanent speech impairment, deafness lasting more than 13 weeks, multiple broken ribs, post-traumatic epileptic fits, and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement. All the people with such injuries will no longer be eligible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Damian Green
I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have just said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark): if the injuries are serious and long lasting, people will still be eligible for the scheme. There is a genuine misunderstanding. [Interruption.] Let me get on to the bands in a moment, and I hope I will assuage the concerns of the right hon. Member for Tooting.
Damian Green
I have been generous in giving way. I will make some progress now, and give way later.
Apart from the policy problem, the scheme does not live within its substantial budget. In recent years, the CICA has been provided with an annual budget of about £200 million. However, the budget has on a number of occasions been topped up at the end of the year to enable claims to be paid when they are due. That practice simply cannot continue. Secondly, we are still resolving claims that were made under the pre-tariff system operating before 1996. Although we have made extra funding available to pay these older claims, pre-tariff liabilities stood at about £150 million at the beginning of the financial year. Thirdly, overall scheme liabilities— including existing tariff scheme liabilities, an estimate of cases that are likely to fall due in the future, and the remaining pre-tariff cases—are in excess of £500 million. Although the scheme will always have an outstanding liability, I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that the figure is indisputably too high and must be reduced. The scheme must be put on a more sustainable footing if it is to continue to offer timely compensation to victims and provide a set of fair and realistic expectations.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that for some time many of us on both sides of the House have campaigned for a better deal for victims of dangerous dog attacks. I appreciate that those with more serious injuries will still be able to receive compensation under the scheme if they have no other source of compensation, but what about those with more minor injuries? Will they have access to the new discretionary reserve fund, so that they can at least make their case for some compensation?
Damian Green
Some of them undoubtedly will be covered by the new hardship fund, to which I intend to refer in a moment. I thought that the right hon. Member for Tooting was uncharacteristically churlish in describing it as a smokescreen. It was set up because the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and other Ministers listened—
Damian Green
May I respond to the previous intervention first?
The people to whom my hon. Friend refers will certainly have access to the hardship fund. As she knows, the purpose of the fund is to compensate those who have suffered as a result of a crime, and in the case of some attacks by dogs a criminal offence will not have been committed. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned a case in which someone had gone to prison, so clearly a crime had been committed in that case, and it ought to be covered by the scheme. However, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern, and I hope that it has been addressed.
Damian Green
I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a written ministerial statement will be published shortly giving details of the scheme. I can also tell him that there will be a £500,000 fund to establish the scheme, and that it will be aimed at people who are temporarily unable to work as a result of their injuries and are not in receipt of statutory sick pay or an equivalent employer-provided scheme.
Damian Green
The hon. Lady has had a go already. I should like to make some more progress. First, let me make a final point about the issue of dogs, which has been raised by Members on both sides of the House.
It is inaccurate to say that all postal workers who had suffered dog bites would be eligible under the current scheme, which makes payments when dogs are intentionally set on victims and in a small number of other cases. Some of the figures that have been bandied around do not reflect the reality.
Let me now return to the expenses involved in the scheme. The cumulative effect of the reforms will deliver savings of about £50 million a year, but that is not to say that the Government are aiming to reduce the amount available to victims. We are determined to get the balance right, so that the burden is shifted from the taxpayer to those who commit crimes.
The new victim surcharge arrangements were implemented on 1 October. Along with other financial impositions, they are intended to raise up to an additional £50 million per year to be spent on victim services. That is how it should be. Offenders who have caused harm to victims and to society as a whole should have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for the services for which they themselves have created a need. At present, out of a total central Government spend on victims and witnesses of about £66 million, only about £10 million comes from offenders. That means that the burden rests too heavily on the taxpayer. With the money that we are taking out of the scheme and the money that we are raising from offenders, we are changing that balance.
Sadiq Khan
How much of the victim surcharge, which the Minister expects to amount to £50 million, will go directly to compensate the victims of criminal injuries?
Damian Green
As I have just said, the money will be spent on victim services. [Interruption.] I am interested to note that the Labour party does not seem to regard victim services as important. They are hugely important, as I have said on several occasions.
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of enticing me to draw attention to the present Government’s fiscal inheritance. We simply cannot—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said in the responsible part of his speech that he was prepared to look for savings in the budget of the Ministry of Justice, but judging by his remarks from a sedentary position all he wants to do is increase spending in every area.
Tariff payments will continue to be available to those who are most seriously affected by their injuries, and to the victims of the most distressing crimes. What that means in practice—
Damian Green
Let me explain first, and then I will give way to those Members who have not yet intervened.
What that means in practice is that bands 1 to 5 of the current tariff, which contain the more minor injuries such as short-term sprains, will be removed. Bands 6 to 12 are to be subject to a graduated reduction of between 60% and 24%, but bands 13 to 25 are to be protected in their entirety at existing levels.
There has been much talk about injuries in bands 1 to 5 possibly not being minor. However, many injuries already appear more than once in the existing tariff and are ranked according to their seriousness and recovery time. Those injuries in bands 1 to 5 that we are removing may, therefore, appear again in band 6 or above, if the recovery time is longer or the injury is more complex. Where an injury has an ongoing impact, therefore, it will generally still be included in the draft scheme.
Mark Durkan
The Minister says the reformed scheme is intended to help victims of the most distressing crimes. Human trafficking must be one of the most distressing crimes anyone can suffer, but it is clear that no account will be taken of the trauma and utter denigration suffered by the victims of human trafficking. They will be assessed only on the basis of whether their injuries happen to score on the scratch-card under the new scheme. The all-party group on human trafficking recently heard an unhysterical briefing from judges on the implications of the new scheme for such victims.
Damian Green
If people have injuries that qualify, and if they are resident in this country, they will still qualify—although things might depend on how long they had been in the country. As I hope the all-party group would accept, the overall package of services for the victims of trafficking—which I know a bit about from my previous life as Immigration Minister—is considerably better than it was in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Over the last month or so, we have learned about some truly horrendous past sexual abuse of children. Many of those offences took place up to 30 or 40 years ago, so many of the perpetrators are now dead and gone. The victims who 30 years later are coming to terms with the trauma of what happened to them need to be assured that the CICS is available for them. Can the Minister assure us today that they will be able to claim?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, especially given the current circumstances that he describes, and I am able to give him that assurance: the claims officer will have the discretion to consider claims that may have been delayed for a very long time for precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman sets out.
There has been criticism of the removal of the possibility of compensation for victims suffering from post-traumatic epileptic fits. Critics need to know that where there is a continuing disability—including where the victim’s condition is controlled by medication—an award may still be made.
The right hon. Member for Tooting spoke about the removal of awards for those who have suffered scarring. That is an important point, but it needs to be understood that if the level of visible disfigurement is anything other than minor, the victim will still be eligible to make a claim. The rationale behind the removal of the lower bands is that they are the least serious injuries in the tariff and victims tend to recover from them fairly quickly.
Damian Green
I have given way enough, and I know how many Members wish to contribute to the debate.
Those who sustain injuries of a more permanent nature will generally still be able to claim, because if an injury has a lasting impact it usually appears again further up the tariff. Let me also restate the point I partially made to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): tariff awards for sexual offences and patterns of physical abuse will remain at their current levels wherever they currently apply in the tariff. That will enable better protection for victims of domestic violence, for example, who very often are subjected to more than one assault. We have certainly defined the eligibility more tightly so that only those direct and blameless victims of crime who fully co-operate with the criminal justice system process obtain compensation under the scheme, and I think that is right.
Various points have been made about dogs, but the one that cannot be repeated often enough is that under our charges the authority will pay only where the dog was set on the victim by its owner—in other words, where it was used as a weapon—because this is meant to be a compensation scheme for criminal injuries. As I explained, the ability of victims of sexual offences to apply for compensation needs to be preserved, and we have done that.
One point that I have not yet addressed relates to loss of earnings. The scheme has never compensated the actual value of lost earnings, but these payments still account for a large part of the cost of the scheme. The payments are intended not to put the applicant back in the position they were in prior to the injury but to provide a safety net. There are, of course, other benefits provided by the state for which applicants may be eligible, but in making our changes we are no longer reducing loss of earnings payments to take account of those other benefits.
I have briefly mentioned the hardship fund. We recognise that some very low earners, be they employed or self-employed, may, as a result of the removal of bands 1 to 5, find themselves in real and immediate financial hardship. They will need short-term assistance, so we will make payments for up to four weeks’ absence from work, which will enable those most in need to keep their heads above water while they recover from their injuries. The fund will be administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, at no additional cost, with a referral function provided by Victim Support. Applications will be processed quickly and payment made promptly, ensuring that debt is not accrued.
Damian Green
I said that I would not give way again, but the hon. Lady has been very insistent.
Helen Jones
As I pointed out earlier, even those on low pay who are receiving statutory sick pay can be plunged into debt. In the past, their compensation in the lower bands has at least gone some way to relieving that debt. The Minister has to answer the question: why does he believe a victim of crime should be plunged into debt that they cannot get out of simply because they have been a victim? Offering them support services, however good, does not pay their bills.
Damian Green
As I have explained, the whole point of the hardship fund is precisely to address the problems of those most likely to be affected. Of course, the hon. Lady will know that many other avenues of civil recovery and so on will enable people to obtain compensation.
I began this speech by talking about the context and summarising the package of reforms contained in the consultation. The fact is that difficult decisions have to be made, but these are the right ones. The current scheme is not only unaffordable but illogical. The policy rationale is flawed, with thousands of awards being made for minor injuries that will have minimal lasting effects and thousands of payments being made to convicted criminals.
Michael Connarty
The Minister is putting forward his case on minor matters. He did say that people who had suffered sexual assault would still be eligible for compensation. I read that children under the age of 13 would automatically be eligible, but those between 13 and 15 would not have automatic access to criminal compensation and each case would be considered. How can he justify saying that people under the age of 15 should not be eligible automatically for compensation?
Damian Green
They are not “not eligible”; each case will be considered. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because it is sensible to allow discretion in those periods. [Interruption.] We cannot and will not simply continue pouring out taxpayers’ money to little effect. I must again emphasise that the Government are committed to improving support—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It is impossible to conduct a debate if Front Benchers, supported by Back Benchers, shout at the Minister all the time. We cannot follow the points being made, so I would be grateful if it stopped.
Damian Green
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We cannot simply continue to pour out taxpayers’ money to little effect. The changes are meant to ensure that the money spent on supporting victims of crimes of all sorts is spent in the most effective way.
Damian Green
I am sorry, but I have given way often enough and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
I must emphasise that the Government are committed not only to improving support for victims and witness but to improving practically the overall package of victim support so that they will have better services in future. The protections that remain in the compensation scheme will be aimed in particular at those who suffer the most serious crimes and at those who are most vulnerable to suffering serious hardship. I would be surprised if Opposition Members did not recognise that those ought to be the two biggest priorities of the scheme. That is what the compensation scheme should achieve within the financial boundaries it is required to keep. The draft scheme provides a coherent and fair way of focusing payments towards those most seriously affected by their injuries within an affordable budget and I ask the House to reject the motion.
Mr Smith
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The irony will not be lost on hundreds of thousands of USDAW members and other trade unionists.
The Government have argued, and we heard it from the Minister, who has now left—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon. He is still here. He has moved to the Back Benches, but perhaps not permanently just yet. He argued that the compensation scheme was financially unsustainable, but that is not borne out by the Government’s own figures or the impact assessment.
Over the past four years, the cost of the tariff scheme to the Ministry of Justice has averaged £192 million, which is both remarkably stable and within the current budget of £200 million. The cost of criminal injuries compensation as a whole was higher in 2011-12 because the Government made payments totalling £237 million on 78 cases that arose before the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996. The majority of those cases involved children, where a final assessment of their ongoing need could not be concluded until they reached adulthood. Total liabilities under the scheme are inflated by the cost of historic cases, including pre-1996 cases yet to be settled.
Damian Green
As I understand it, and I suspect this may be an argument that appeals to the right hon. Gentleman from his time at the Treasury, he thinks the system is fine and solvent as long as we keep delaying payments to victims, which is what has been happening for many, many years. Surely when he thinks about that, it is clearly an unacceptable way to ration public spending.
Mr Smith
I want the liabilities to be settled and the victims to get the money to which they are entitled. To be fair, some progress has been made on those cases. Earlier in the autumn there were 73 pre-1996 cases still to be settled, at a predicted cost of £148 million, but the figure has now come down to 33 cases, probably at a cost of £100 million, so the backlog is being addressed and is not the rising burden that the Ministry is trying to claim it is.
Furthermore, if the Secretary of State’s argument is correct, why does the Government’s own impact assessment state:
“The current scheme costs around £212m per year—£52.5m per quarter—and we assume that in the absence of reform this would continue”?
That is the cost to both the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government. The impact assessment does not state that in the absence of reform the costs would rise or get out of control; it states that the level of spending would continue. The problem is that the Government are choosing to cut the budget for the scheme.
I appeal again to Government Members. In making the victims of crime pay the price of these cuts, they have picked the wrong target. We know that difficult choices have to be made. I understand the pressure of party loyalty they feel under, but there are times when we have to put the interests of vulnerable members of the public first. If Government Members consulted their constituents and party associations about this, I feel sure that they would say, “Don’t cut criminal injuries compensation.” Above all, if they listened to the victims of crime, they would reject the measure and support our motion.
Firearms Controls
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) both on securing the debate and on the tone in which he has addressed this issue, following the tragic events in his constituency. The shootings he talked about shocked the whole country. Obviously our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the victims. I agree with him: it is right that Government and Parliament should reflect on what lessons might be learned from these fortunately rare, but nevertheless tragic events, and how best we can protect public safety. I and the whole House—indeed, it is good to see so many people at an Adjournment debate—share his view that we need to approach the issues in a calm and measured way.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Durham constabulary has asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the events leading to the shootings. There has not yet been a coroner’s inquest into the deaths. Because of the investigation and a future inquest, the House will appreciate the need for me to avoid saying anything that might be prejudicial in relation to the circumstances of this case.
I understand that there have been complexities with the IPCC investigation, although it is working through those matters as fast as possible and the investigation is now close to completion. The final report is now being finalised and it will be shared with the families shortly. Publication of the report will, however, depend on the time scales for the inquest and the wishes of the coroner. The Government will consider carefully the results of the inquest and of the IPCC investigation, paying careful attention to any specific recommendations that they might make and any implications for wider firearms policy, to which I will now turn as I try to address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
The Government have always made it clear that controls on firearms should be targeted fairly and proportionately, and that they should strike the right balance by securing public safety without bearing down unnecessarily on legitimate users. With this in mind, I have arranged meetings with a range of stakeholders since assuming responsibility for this work. I met Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on firearms, this week, and we discussed a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised today.
Following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in 2010, the Government undertook to take a fresh look at firearms law and subsequently considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which looked comprehensively at the whole range of issues. The Government published our response to the Committee’s report in September 2011. Our response sets out a number of commitments in response to the Committee’s recommendations. The Government will update the Committee, and the House, shortly on progress on those recommendations.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is generally recognised that the UK has comparatively low levels of gun crime, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is true that these laws are complex, and I would therefore like to give a brief overview of the main controls that are in place. There are two main categories of firearms licensed by the police. First, there are those that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. They are typically target shooting rifles and rifles used for hunting or vermin control. The second category is shotguns, typically used by farmers and for clay pigeon shooting. Both are possessed by means of separate certificates that are valid for five years. There is a third category of firearm, generally referred to as prohibited weapons, and these can be possessed only with the written authority of the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) raised the issue of training for Olympic pistol shooters. In advance of the London games, the Home Secretary provided an exemption for this third category of firearms to allow the Team GB shooting team to train here. She is currently in the process of issuing new authorities to British pistol squad members to train for the 2014 Commonwealth games. This is of course subject to the usual checks on applicants and to ensuring that training is confined to suitably secure ranges. The Government will look at arrangements for the 2016 Olympic games in due course.
The hon. Member for Easington raised concerns about how the licensing process operates. I would like to say something about the processes involved—again, without making reference to the specific circumstances of this case. The procedures are similar for the issue of a shotgun certificate but there are some material differences. First and foremost, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to possess shotguns without danger to public safety. Unlike with section 1 firearms, the applicant does not have to show good reason to have a shotgun, but the police may refuse to grant a certificate if they are satisfied that he has no good reason to have one. This is a different control, but it still allows the police to refuse applicants who have dubious reasons for wanting shotguns.
Ian Mearns
I raised a point with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) about the number of firearms that have been lost or stolen in the past year. I understand that the figure was about 3,000. In the light of that, would the people who have lost their firearms or had them stolen have their licences reviewed?
Damian Green
That would be a matter for the individual force concerned. It is clearly a matter that the police forces that do the licensing, who are responsible and sensitive about these things, would take serious note of.
The hon. Member for Easington mentioned national control of firearms and the proposal for a national licensing authority. There is a danger that a central authority might lose touch with the sort of local information that the police need. In his report on the Dunblane tragedy, Lord Cullen recommended that licensing functions should remain with the police. Previous suggestions to replace the current police licensing system with a central civilianised licensing authority have been rejected as more costly and less efficient than the present system.
Although the Government are not in favour of a national firearms control board, the Home Office guidance to the police on firearms legislation—the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, and it is indeed long and complex—is being revised and updated to help ensure that licensing procedures are applied consistently across forces. This is an important piece of work, responding directly to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s wish for more consistency. In particular, we will highlight the need to take full account of any incidences of domestic violence when considering applications for the grant or renewal of certificates. The comments that I have heard this evening will be particularly pertinent to that.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that cost is not an issue here? Where people use firearms for recreation, there is no excuse whatever for the process to be subsidised. It is not a matter of cost; it is purely a matter of process—and the costs should be covered by those who require a licence.
Damian Green
The ultimate driver, frankly, is safety; that is what underlies the system. On the issue of cost, the Home Office has received a detailed report from ACPO proposing new firearms fees to allow forces to recover the cost of firearms licensing. In considering the proposal, the Government will look both at the quality of service licence holders receive, which is relevant, and will discuss with ACPO the scope for making some of the current processes more efficient and effective. That will take into account the need to manage risk and ensure public protection.
As we indicated in our response to the Select Committee, we do not consider that separate licensing for shotguns and firearms is causing difficulties. Applying a good reason test in the same way for both categories could be problematic. For example, unlike target shooters, shotgun owners do not always belong to clubs that could vouch that they had shot regularly. However, I assure the House that we will keep this issue under review. As I indicated earlier, the local police must satisfy themselves that an applicant for a certificate is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, and will not present a danger to public safety. This is a particularly heavy responsibility and sits right at the heart of the licensing process. Such is the basis of my discussions with ACPO.
One of the most important points raised by the hon. Gentleman was about the need for medical checks on those who have access to firearms. I completely agree that it is important that the police are made aware of medical conditions that affect a person’s suitability to possess firearms. Both the hon. Gentleman and I will therefore—
Policing
Damian Green Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as that is part of the Conservatives’ record. One of the things that we will be campaigning on outside London in these elections is their appalling record on cutting police throughout England and Wales.
Today’s debate is a chance for us to try to engage the public in these elections to ensure—if this is possible—a good turnout. The Government’s record, to date, has been appalling. Hon. Members should listen not only to me, but to the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and head of the soon-to-be-dissolved National Policing Improvement Agency. He said:
“If you could have constructed a manual on how not to conduct an election, the Home Office have managed to tick off just about every element of it, including holding it in November, which is almost guaranteed to be dark and poor weather.”
He continued:
“So there are significant problems with getting a decent turnout…If they get elected on a 15% turnout it’s going to be pretty shocking.”
On 13 December 2010, the Home Secretary said at the Dispatch Box:
“With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]
However, only last month, research commissioned by Victim Support showed that 90% of people questioned had no idea what this role entailed or what it did. On Monday, a survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners suggested that 85% of people either knew “not very much” or “nothing at all” about this election—nearly two in five knew nothing about it whatsoever. The same survey, only this week, showed that the number of people asked who were certain to vote was 15%. The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), whom I believe is to wind up today’s debate, even though he cannot be bothered to come to hear the opening speeches—
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I should say, in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, that he is, as we speak, disengaging himself from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which had summoned him to appear before it. So he is fulfilling a parliamentary obligation at the moment.
Mr Hanson
The Ministers need to establish the facts on these matters. If the relevant Minister cannot reply to the debate, perhaps another Minister, such as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) could wind up instead.
Let us put that aside, because the key issue is that the Home Office Minister responsible for crime reduction, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, said at his party conference, only two weeks ago, that a turnout of under 20% would not be acceptable. We face these November elections with awareness still at a very poor level, and we also have a new electoral system, one not normally used for these elections. The Electoral Commission has summed up the situation in its most recent briefing in September, where it said:
“It is important that voters have sufficient information about the voting system, the issues and the candidates that are standing in elections…This will be particularly important for the PCC elections because these are completely new elections, for a new role. In addition they are happening at an unusual time of year, using a voting system (the Supplementary Vote) that most people will be unfamiliar with.”
It went on to say that although it will be carrying out its functions in highlighting the elections, its
“preferred option—a booklet with information about the candidates to be sent to voters in each police authority area – is not going to happen.”
The Government have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on turnout for these elections, so I would be interested to know from the Minister what sort of modelling the Home Office has done on turnout and what it feels it might be. When we examine every local election since 2006, which were held in May, we find that there was an average turnout of 37%—that is twice what the Electoral Reform Society suggests turnout will be on 15 November. Its modelling suggests that the turnout will be as low as 18.5%, and it has said that these elections
“threaten to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history.”
If that is the case, the fault will lie with the Minister.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his kind words at the start of his speech, and I agree with him about the police. This Government recognise the vital job that the police do to protect the public. The courage and dedication of the thousands of men and women who work in police forces across the country make them outstanding. Police officers risk their lives in the line of duty every single day, and this year, more than ever, we have been reminded of the dangers they face. The tragic deaths of PC Ian Dibell, PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes show just how brave our officers can be and the debt of gratitude we owe them all.
This year, with the Olympic and Paralympic games, we have seen the best of policing, but in the response to phone hacking and Hillsborough real questions have been raised about integrity and accountability, and we are determined to get to grips with both.
Before I talk about this Government’s positive agenda for policing to introduce reforms to deliver a more professional service responsive to the public and accountable for their actions, I want to address some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Delyn. He reminded us that his party opposed the introduction of police and crime commissioners—the introduction of democracy into police accountability. This is a fascinating conversion, because when Labour was in power the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was then police Minister, said that
“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.
He was absolutely right then and the Labour party is absolutely wrong now.
The right hon. Member for Delyn also had the cheek to complain about privatisation, on which I do not need to quote his Labour predecessors on policing, because I can quote him. In 2009 he said that he was “very relaxed” about police collaboration with the private sector and that the police had Labour’s “blessing to do so”. His remarks should be put in that context; he thought something completely different three years ago.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the previous Government’s consultation was on whether the whole police authority, not just one person, should be elected? Will he also confirm that it was a proper consultation and that because of the outright opposition of parties of all persuasions in local government the proposals were dropped?
Damian Green
The Opposition, who were then in government, expressed a view, changed their mind and have now changed their mind again. I am fascinated that the right hon. Gentleman did not address the issue of privatisation, which started under his tenure as Home Secretary but which I assume he is now prepared to attack as a loyal supporter of his party’s Front-Bench representatives.
What we have heard so far is the Labour party’s central obsession with spending more money. The right hon. Member for Delyn has made no admission that the Opposition are, in fact, committed to the same level of cuts as this Government, or to any level of cuts at all. There was no honest admission that police numbers would have gone down under their plans, and no expression of regret for the 25,000 police officers stuck in back-room functions under Labour’s top-down management of the police service. Most of all, there was no apology for causing the financial mess that led to these cuts in the first place. We have had no transparency or apology from the Labour party, and just one solution—spend more money. It is as clear as ever that Labour is not learning and is not capable of learning.
We cannot even credit the Opposition with being consistent on that point. As we have heard, the police and crime commissioner elections will deliver accountable policing that responds to public demands. Labour Front Benchers are arguing for both more and less spending at the same time. They complain about what they describe as the waste of money on holding elections, which is an interesting attitude for a democratic party, at the same time as they argue that we should spend £30 million more on publicising the elections. I suppose that they could, with intellectual coherence, hold one or other of those views, but they cannot hold both of them at once, as they appear to want to do.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
What is the Minister’s prediction for the election turnout on 15 November and what does he regard as necessary to give the candidates a mandate?
Damian Green
I will address the PCC elections in a moment. Unlike the right hon. Member for Delyn, I want to start my speech by talking about policing, which is what this debate is supposed to be about.
At the start of the spending review, the service was spending more than £14 billion a year. It is only right that the police make their contribution to the savings that are needed, while ensuring that the quality of service that the public receive is maintained and, where possible, improved. This can be done and it is being done. By changing the way in which police forces work, getting officers out of the back office and on to the front line and stripping out bureaucratic processes, officers can be freed up to do the job they joined to do—to fight crime and protect the public. This is what forces up and down the country are doing. The House does not need to take my word for it; the independent inspectorate of constabulary has said so.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Not only is the Minister cutting more than 300 police officers from the Leicestershire force by 2015; he is also cutting back-room staff, which will force more officers into the back room. The Minister is a reasonable man, so will he give me a prediction? By 2015, will crime go up or down in Leicester?
Damian Green
I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman a prediction, because I can tell him what is happening to crime in Leicestershire. Crime in Leicestershire is down 5% under this Government and I hope that he will welcome that change.
The inspectorate has confirmed what Ministers have said all along—that the front line of policing is being protected. We know that chief constables are prioritising the front line, because they plan to increase the proportion of officers on the front line from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. Protecting the front line does not mean staying exactly the same, it is about the service that the public receive. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that the service is being maintained, and I hope that Opposition Members will have the politeness to listen to it.
Andrew Percy
May I take the Minister back to policing numbers? My dearly valued colleagues from the Labour party in Humberside will be able to confirm that police numbers there fell in 2007, for the very same reasons that he has outlined here today, and there was zero opposition among local Labour politicians.
Damian Green
As ever, my hon. Friend points out the inadequacy of Labour arguments in Humberside and elsewhere. Since he brings up the subject of numbers, I am happy to tell him that in this Government’s time in office, crime in Humberside has fallen by 12%—a particularly good performance, I think he will agree.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
That is all very well, but will the Minister actually answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) put to him? How are front line police officers expected to be able to get out on to the streets and be visible to the public if the back-office functions upon which they rely so deeply are being cut?
Damian Green
I would guess from all I know of the hon. Lady that she opposes any use of the private sector in back-office functions, but that is the way to release warranted police officers, who are trained to be on the streets. Her party goes back and forth; in government it was in favour of the use of the private sector, but in opposition it has retreated to its comfort zone and opposed it. Under both the previous Government and the current one, many police forces have shown—
Damian Green
May I finish answering the previous intervention before I come to the hon. Gentleman?
Many police forces have shown that one way to get more officers on to the front line is through more flexible and better use of back-office and middle-office staff. Now I have pleasure in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Steve McCabe
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting.
Given the importance that the Minister attaches to the democratisation that comes with commissioners, does he accept that where commissioners have a mandate from the public to oppose certain types of privatisation, whether in the back office or the front office, the Government should respect that?
Damian Green
Yes, I do. We are in favour of democracy, and I accept that it is possible that police and crime commissioners will be elected who will do things with which I disagree. They will be democratically elected and have the mandate to do what they do, and if they get it wrong they will answer to their electorate in four years’ time. That is the point of democracy.
Damian Green
May I make some progress? I am conscious of your warning about going on too long, Mr Speaker.
The Opposition said that because of the cuts, emergency response times would increase, but they have held up. They said that neighbourhood policing would suffer, but there are more neighbourhood officers now than there were in May 2010. Most importantly of all—it is at the heart of the debate—they said that crime would go up, and they were wrong. Crime has gone down by 10% under this Government. That is the situation across key crime types, with recorded violence down 13%, burglary down 7%, criminal damage down 22%, vehicle crime down 15%, robbery down 5% and knife crime down 9%.
Much has been made of the situation in the west midlands. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) will wish to know that crime there is down by an impressive 13% since the election. I hope that west midlands Members of all parties will welcome that.
Labour has been proved wrong on all its key claims. Police reform is working, and crime is falling. I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to point that out today. They were wrong to claim that forces faced 20% cuts. No force faces cuts of that level.
Mr Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports by HMIC, so he will presumably be familiar with the concerns that it made clear earlier this year about the future performance of the Metropolitan police, given the cuts that the Mayor of London is likely to push through. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is even more concern, particularly in the suburbs of London, about rumours of significant closures of police stations and custody suites and mergers of borough commands?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman has not quite got with the democratic project yet. As he knows, policing in London is the responsibility of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. The hon. Gentleman had his chance earlier this year to put his arguments against the Mayor of London’s crime policy, but those arguments failed. The people of London voted to re-elect the current Mayor of London, and he has an excellent Deputy Mayor who is dealing with those matters.
Damian Green
I will give way one more time as the right hon. Gentleman is a former Home Secretary.
Alan Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister, but I thought I just heard him say that there are no cuts of 20%. In his speech last Monday, the Prime Minister said,
“in real terms, central police spending cuts are around 20 per cent”.
Does the Minister disagree with the Prime Minister?
Damian Green
No. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. The claim is, I think, that forces are facing 20% cuts, but no force is facing cuts of that level. As he knows as well as anyone in the country, the police service receives about a quarter of its income from the police precept element of council tax, the exact proportion—[Interruption.] I am glad that I am able to educate the Labour party about how the police are funded in this country. That funding is not all from the Home Office; some of it comes from the police precept. As the right hon. Gentleman and, I hope, those on the Opposition Front Bench know—although there is no evidence that they do—the exact proportion that comes from the precept varies from force to force, and the level at which it is set is, I stress, a matter for individual police and crime commissioners to decide. In short, no force has seen anything like a 20% cash reduction.
We on this side of the House have long argued that there is no simple link between police numbers and crime rates, and I am happy that that view is shared by the Home Affairs Committee. The figures I have quoted show that that view is correct and widely accepted—the one place it has not yet been accepted is inside the Labour party.
Let me turn to the elections for police and crime commissioners. On this side of the House, we are getting behind our candidates and campaigning hard to ensure that the elections are a success and that the public get the PCCs they deserve—hard-working, dedicated people who want to deliver for their communities and improve policing. Opposition Members should decide whether they support or oppose the elections. I assume that they support them, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Delyn has said that he does. A huge number of former Labour Ministers are standing, determined to make 15 November the night of the living retreads.
The confusion on the Opposition Benches is summed up with a pleasing touch of nostalgia by a dispute between Blair and Prescott. Prescott is having an argument with a new Blair, Lord Blair, who is arguing that people should not vote—I think that is disgraceful, and I hope the Labour party will agree that to tell people not to vote in a democratic election is deplorable. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Delyn disagrees with Lord Blair. I hope that will continue and that everyone in the Labour party will condemn Lord Blair for what he said, not least because, as we have seen in recent articles, Lord Prescott is—of course—campaigning in his unique and energetic fashion around Humberside.
The introduction of PCCs is the most significant democratic reform of policing ever. It will introduce greater transparency and accountability to a service of which we are all rightly proud, but which can sometimes be too distant from the public it serves and fail to reflect adequately their concerns and priorities. As I told the House in a debate last week, only 7% of the public know what a police authority is. That figure represents a huge failure in democratic accountability, because it is the job of a police authority—as it will be of a PCC—to spend the public’s money in a way that guarantees that the police in that area are doing what the public need. It is impossible to do that when 93% of the public do not even know what police authorities are.
Damian Green
I am spoilt for choice but I think that the hon. Lady has had a go, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Wayne David
Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State in the Home Department who said at the Liberal Democrat conference that a turnout out of 20% in elections for PCCs would, “not be good”?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend will speak later in the debate, and can no doubt speak for himself. Up to now, and until next month, the public have been unable to do anything about the failures of police authorities. PCCs will have a clear incentive to perform better than that, because if they fail to represent their communities, engage properly and deliver on their priorities, the public will tell them what they think at the ballot box.
Policing matters to the public and people want their forces to respond to their concerns. The advertising campaign that the Home Office has been running this month will be seen by 85% of the public. It tells them how to get more information—[Interruption.] Labour Members have problems with people getting information online, but people can get information online at www.choosemypcc.org.uk, and anyone who wants a printed booklet can get one by calling the freephone number from the advert. Everyone registered to vote will also get the number on a polling card through their door, and the Electoral Commission is writing to each household with information on how to vote. Whatever the Opposition want to say, no one who wants information in the elections will be denied it.
Damian Green
As the website goes online only tomorrow, it will be quite difficult for people to phone now. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nominations closed only this week, and the final day for people withdrawing from the election was today, so the candidates will have their information out only tomorrow.
Many hon. Members have asked how many people will turn out to vote. We do not know, but however many do so, every PCC will have more legitimacy to make important decisions on what the police do and how the local budget is spent than unelected, unaccountable and largely invisible police authorities.
Julian Smith
The number of chief constables and ex-chief constables who face criminal investigations is going into double digits—I am thinking of Grahame Maxwell in North Yorkshire and the problems in Cleveland. Will chief constables be held to account much better under the new regime?
Damian Green
It is extremely important that chief constables are held to account, but equally important is the transparency with which they are held to account. That will now be the job of visible, public and democratically elected figures. Among the many bodies to benefit from this advent of democracy will be senior police officers. Many institutions in this country have had to become more transparent in recent years—not least the House. In the long run, it does the institution good to be held to account more publicly.
The policy fits into wider police reform. For too long before this Government came to office, the Home Office interfered too much in local policing and cared too little about national threats. The introduction of PCCs is a step along the road to reversing that trend, and the creation of the National Crime Agency to focus on serious and organised crime nationally is another. That did not exist under the previous Government, but it should have, and it will exist under this Government. PCCs will not just focus just on their local area, but will have a duty to co-operate in dealing with national threats under the new strategic policing requirement, which this Government also introduced.
We are determined that the police will have the powers they need to tackle crime. That includes enhancing professionalism with the creation of the new college of policing. We have today announced that Chief Constable Alex Marshall of Hampshire police will be its chief executive. Key to the college’s work will be the sharing of best practice and research into what works at a local level.
We believe in local solutions to local problems and a departure from the central direction and edicts of the past. The antisocial behaviour order was typical of the previous top-down approach that too often failed communities. Fifty-seven per cent. of ASBOs issued up to the end of 2011 were breached at least once, and more than 40% were breached more than once. It simply did not work, which is why we have set out new proposals in our white paper, “Putting Victims First”, for faster, more flexible and effective powers that will provide a real deterrent to perpetrators and better protect victims and communities.
We also believe that a balance must be struck between enabling the police to use vital modern investigative techniques, such as DNA and CCTV, and protecting the rights of innocent members of the public not to be under constant and unregulated surveillance. That is why, through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have put in place a series of sensible and proportionate controls on the use of those techniques. But we are not weakening our response to crime. We are not restricting CCTV—it is an important tool but not the only one—and we will continue to take the DNA of the guilty, including, for the first time, of prisoners, rather than that of innocent people. So we are taking a balanced approach that protects the public and punishes the guilty.
Overall, our reforms add up to a realignment of policing in this country that will free the police from central targets and bureaucracy and will place power back in the hands of local people. The introduction of PCCs will make policing more accountable and responsive, while driving forces to become efficient and to improve continually. The end result will be a trusted, responsive and professional police service that will be continually improving to cut crime.
The motion is backward looking. It could have been written by the Labour party in 2005. Its approach to fighting crime amounts to spending more money, tighter control from Whitehall and ever more interference by the state in the lives of ordinary, decent people. It did not work when they were in government, and that is why this Government are working for a more accountable, more transparent and more professional police service. This is what will lead to further falls in crime, and that is why the House should reject this ill-conceived motion.