Olympics (Security)

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If I may just correct the hon. Lady on one fact: there have not been three security Ministers over the past two years and two months.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Pauline Neville-Jones, Angela Browning and the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).

[Mrs May]

No, Baroness Neville-Jones was the first security Minister, and my hon. Friend is the second. Perhaps the shadow Home Office team could pay a little more attention to what happens with Ministers—I know that there are more of them shadowing us than there are Ministers.

The Home Office and others examined the contract and worked with LOCOG and G4S throughout the period in question to ensure that the arrangements they had in place were correct. Only yesterday did it become clear that G4S felt it was not able to provide the full number of personnel that it was contracted to provide. I hope the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will agree that, in those circumstances, it was entirely right for the Government to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, I would be happy to have such a meeting. I meet chief constables regularly and visit forces a lot, and I am sure that I will visit Nottinghamshire again in due course. Police forces up and down the country are showing that they are broadly coping well with the reductions in funding. They are making savings and continuing to reduce crime while protecting the front line. That was what HMIC’s report said last week.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

In the county of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), 162 police officers will be lost by 2015, yet if reports in the weekend press are to be believed, the Home Secretary is asking the Treasury for more money to invest not in officers to tackle rural or other crime but in the election of police and crime commissioners. Is that true, and does it not show once again that the Government’s priorities are wrong on this matter?

[Nick Herbert]

I am absolutely astonished by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, since only last week he and I were in a Committee of this House debating how much money should be spent on promoting police and crime commissioner elections, and he called for an increase in resources and for us to spend more money on those elections. It is frankly astonishing that he should ask me the question that he just has.

Proceeds of Crime

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly hear my hon. Friend’s point, and we will monitor that carefully in relation to the directive. As I have indicated to the House, there is currently no proposal in the directive dealing with mutual recognition.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but I wish to clarify it. In another place’s proceedings on the matter only recently, on 22 May, Lord Henley, the Minister, said:

“The directive offers us a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery legislation in the EU, enhance our co-operation with member states, and increase our powers to recover criminal assets held overseas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 778.]

Why did the Minister in the Lords say that only two weeks ago, whereas the Under-Secretary is saying today that we are not going to opt in?

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that my noble Friend underlined clearly that the Government had not concluded their consideration of the directive at that point and had not formulated their decision on whether to opt in. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by law enforcement partners about civil recovery powers, and we have determined that the best course of action to protect our laws and our current civil recovery operation is not to opt in. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to challenge that view. He seems to have determined that it would be appropriate to opt in.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take a different course, I am happy to give way to him.

[Mr Hanson]

I was simply looking at what was said only three weeks ago in another place and what the Minister is saying now. Given what he has said today, is he willing to publish in the Library at least some sort of précis of the responses that he has had from the agencies concerned, so that we can examine them in the light of the directive?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly happy to consider that, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are sometimes operational sensitivities attached to doing so. We have heard clear representations from operational law enforcement partners, which have been an important factor for the reasons that I have outlined. We none the less recognise that the UK would benefit from the directive raising standards across the EU regardless of whether we opted in, because of the developed legislation that we have in place in this country.

Not opting in at this stage is not a sign that we do not care about asset recovery. It is a sign that the UK takes it very seriously and is committed to getting legislation right for the UK and all member states. Our ultimate aim is to achieve better mutual recognition of both criminal and civil confiscation. The directive will not achieve that, and we will press for a further instrument or instruments in due course that would have that effect. We will analyse the directive carefully, but in the context of the current version, and for the reasons that I have explained, our clear judgment is that the UK should not opt in at this point.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The nature of the debate has changed slightly since the initial discussions in another place some weeks ago. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft directive on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the European Union, and I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of his view. He mentioned that the debate should have taken place before the recent recess and was pulled at the last minute. That might be for the reasons of operational advice that he gave, but I smell a bit of anti-Europeanism on the Conservative Back Benches—there is a slight whiff of concern about the EU encroaching on the House’s legislation. Perhaps that is one reason why the Minister has looked at the matter in more detail, but I accept at face value his indication that he has taken advice.

The directive seeks to harmonise national responses by laying down minimum rules for member states with respect to the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets. As the Minister knows, dissipating and converting the proceeds of crime into a variety of assets is one way in which criminal gangs and terrorist organisations operate. The process of uncovering such assets can be complex and difficult, and international co-operation is an indispensable tool in the recovery process.

Like the Minister, I welcome the promotion of cross-border responses. In order to be effective in tackling organised and other crime, we need to co-operate and strengthen our existing relationships with other states within the EU. The Commission believes that EU and international law remain underdeveloped and underutilised. Crime does not respect borders, and we must have a proactive cross-border approach.

I found myself agreeing with Lord Henley, the Minister in another place, who said on 22 May that the directive offers a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery in the EU. The Minister has tonight indicated that we already have a strong UK provision on such matters. In fact, for the most part, the UK exceeds the requirements of the draft provisions, owing in no small part to the measures he mentioned, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was passed by the previous Government, and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010, which I supported as a Minister and saw through the House as a shadow Minister only a couple of years ago.

The Minister has noted that there are a range of figures, but around £560 million-worth of UK criminal assets are overseas. We need to look at how we recover those, because sums of that magnitude indicate that the Government can do more. Effective international co-operation is key.

I believe the directive will be an important tool in tackling serious organised crime, but I am willing to take at face value what the Minister has said. I would like further information on any concerns that have been expressed to him. He can share those either with the House or with me on—dare I say—a Privy Council basis, because I would like a flavour of them. Ultimately, I want an improvement in the asset recovery regime across Europe and international co-operation with our European partners to deal with this problem.

As the motion asks the House to take note of the document, it is important that we examine it. The European Scrutiny Committee highlighted a number of issues, including a range of matters on which there needed to be further work—I accept that these are for discussion—including the extent of criminal offences and the implications of article 8 on safeguards for the legal aid budget. There is a concern whether article 9 includes value-based confiscation, and a concern about articles 3 and 4 on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and on extending confiscation when the court

“‘finds it substantially more probable’ than not that these assets are derived from other similar crimes.”

There is concern about article 7.2, under which, in urgent cases, assets may be frozen prior to obtaining a court order, which is at odds with UK legislation. Article 7 requires member states to be able to freeze property that is in danger of being dissipated, hidden or transferred, as ordered by a court.

A range of issues were raised, including on article 11 and others, by members of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am listening with care to the argument the right right hon. Gentleman puts to the House, but I am unclear on one thing: does he think we should opt in to the directive, yes or no?

[Mr Hanson]

I have said to the Minister that we believe that the directive is a positive development, as the Minister in the other place also said, only two weeks ago, and we should look at it in a positive way. I will take at face value the concerns that the Minister has raised this evening about operability and the advice that he has received from the agencies, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should not opt in because of a wave of anti-European sentiment, that is a very different matter indeed. I will certainly be a positive European. We should have co-operation. I want to see co-operation between states. I also want the European Union to take powers to take the assets of criminals abroad who are operating and making profits in this country. That would not be a bad thing. I would very much welcome further discussions with the Minister about the points that he has raised, but in principle I have no objection to a Europe-wide document helping to support this approach and enshrine improvements on what we currently have in British law.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Was that a yes?

[Mr Hanson]

For the anti-Europeans on the Government Benches, let me say that it is certainly a yes. I certainly wish to see co-operation on a Europe-wide basis to freeze terrorist and criminal assets and to repatriate them to this country. The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it as a yes. This evening I have listened to what the Minister has said, which indicates that he has had advice—which I have not seen—that says that there are difficulties with this measure. What I am saying to the Minister—and to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place—is that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and I would wish to have sight of that advice and to have further briefing on it, so that we can scrutinise the operation of the process by the Minister and how he intends to take forward discussions on the document as a whole. However, I sense that Government Members have objections to the very principle of such co-operation, rather than to the practice that the Minister has set out.

I would like to have some idea from the Minister—either now or after contributions from right hon. and hon. Members—of how he will take this matter forward. He has indicated that he has concerns about certain issues, but he has not yet shared with the House the details of what they are. What is his timetable for discussion with his European Union colleagues on these matters? Does he have a timetable to try to resolve the issues? Does he intend to return to the House at some point to sign up to the document, or has it been kicked into the long grass because he knows that, ultimately, Members such as, I suspect—with due respect—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and others would vote against the measure, no matter what was brought forward, as a matter of principle? If that is the case, the Minister should be honest with the House, because we will certainly return to this matter in due course, when we have seen the advice that he has received, as far as he can share it with us. I sense that this is not just about the operation and practice of the measure; rather, I sense that there are certain elements on the Government Back Benches with a fundamental objection to the principle of such co-operation.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Many Members on the Government Benches agree that we should co-operate. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that we can co-operate without giving up control in some of these policy areas and without subjecting ourselves to the authority of the European Court of Justice, which is what this directive is about?

[Mr Hanson]

Case proved, m’lud: the hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others, does have concerns about this issue in principle. What I take from the Minister this evening is that the advice that he has received from operational organisations points to concerns about the ability of the measure to deliver what it should deliver, which is an increase in the assets taken from criminals and terrorists, and their repatriation to the United Kingdom. If that is the reason he is lukewarm this evening about progressing the measure, I will look at that in detail. If the reason is the pain and suffering that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others may bring upon him—because of their fundamental objections to further European co-operation on such matters—that is something that we will also revisit in due course. If the Minister can provide us with a timetable for further discussion and examination of the issues, and if he is saying that he will rule out for ever signing up to this—[Interruption.] If he would like to say that on the record, that would be helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not rule anything in, and we do not rule anything out. It will depend on how the negotiations proceed. The EU itself will be leading the timetable, and the presidency will take that forward. I understand his desire for a timetable, but that is not within my gift.

[Mr Hanson]

We have heard an interesting development in the consideration of the order this evening. There has been a clear position change from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, only two weeks ago.

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid there has. The Minister has explained this evening the basis on which he has made his comments on the order. I will seek to obtain further information on that, as that would represent valuable progress. I suspect, however, that underneath all this there is a slight concern about the reaction of some Conservative Members, who will undoubtedly raise the concerns that I have mentioned, during the rest of the debate.

Emergency Services (Interoperability)

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is well ahead of me. I will talk at some length about the Olympics, which is one of the biggest challenges our country faces in terms of a possible security threat. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for gold command, led by the police service.

On the broader issue of who responds on our behalf in an emergency, taking the simple example of a serious accident on the motorway, attendance of the police and the ambulance service, responding to dangers to life, and of the fire and rescue service—to free people trapped in vehicles—will be necessary, but it is just as crucial that the Highways Agency is there to assess the situation, to help to minimise the effect on traffic and get the motorway moving again as quickly as possible. That example shows why joint working is paramount.

If we accept that the services responding on our behalf to an emergency need to work more closely together, where does responsibility for joint working currently lie? The three main blue-light services are the responsibility of different Departments. The police service is the responsibility of the Home Office; the ambulance service is administered by the Department of Health; and the fire and rescue service is administered by local authorities, under the control of the Department for Communities and Local Government. In theory, that may be no bad thing, but in practice there is grave danger that each service is considered in isolation. Since becoming an MP, I have learnt about silo thinking, and with each emergency service attached to a Department, there is a danger of such thinking.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There are even more silos, because the health service and local government in Wales are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and the position is similar in Scotland. The Home Office has a responsibility nationally for such matters. Rather than three silos, there are in fact five or seven.

[Mark Pawsey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which adds to the argument in favour of some overarching control or administration to ensure close working between the various agencies involved, so that we do not drift to silo thinking.

I welcome the fact that the Crime and Security Minister is here to respond for the Government, because the police take the lead at incidents—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) drew attention to the police taking command—and he is best placed to speak about interoperability between the emergency services. I hope that he accepts that there must be greater focus on the need for joint working between the services and between Departments. The Government must understand and appreciate the need for greater collaboration.

Interoperability between the emergency services means that each of the three Departments that I mentioned must work together, and the Cabinet Office, which is charged with ensuring effective development, co-ordination and implementation of Government objectives across the board, must play its part in ensuring that interoperability becomes a key facet of our emergency services. For there to be a unified service response, there needs to be a unified Government response to the pressures faced by the services.

The problem was highlighted in a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute, “Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack”:

“Political understanding of the complexities of major incident response is critical to the future of the emergency services.”

The report also contrasted the civil situation with the military situation. In the military, all three emergency services report to one body, the Ministry of Defence, but the civil emergency services do not have an equivalent. In the absence of a Minister with specific responsibility for the broader emergency services, there is no one to argue for ring-fenced or increased budgets, making the recommendations of the report on 7 July difficult to implement.

We can see a difficult picture emerging, although given the structure of the civil service and how government is organised, there is some sense of inevitability about that. It is important, however, to understand how vital interoperability between the services is. Communications between the services—their ability to talk to and understand each other—is also a key point in joint working. Lady Justice Hallett reported:

“It is also well known, particularly as a result of the report of the 7th July Review Committee, that there were considerable failings in radio and mobile communications...The unprecedented volume of radio and mobile telephone communications caused congestion on the airwaves because of a lack of capacity. The emergency services and London Underground were further inhibited in their communications by restrictions on the coverage of their radio systems.”

My awareness of the issue arose from a visit to Airwave, a company with a substantial presence in my constituency of Rugby. The company designed, built and operates the largest public safety radio communications network in the world. It delivers voice and data communications to all the organisations involved in the public services, including the blue-light services as well as local authorities, utilities and transport providers. It has its own Tetra—terrestrial trunked radio—network in the UK, which was purpose-built to meet the needs of the emergency services, and covers 99% of the country’s landmass. Since 2008—after the 7/7 bombings, clearly—the network has included the entire London underground system. Importantly for us, given what we are discussing today, Airwave’s network is interoperable, which means that the emergency services and public safety organisations can communicate effectively with one another.

The success and importance of interoperability within the emergency services was noted in the coroner’s report on 7/7, which drew attention to the need for inter-agency liaison and communications:

“The 7th July 2005 Review Committee concluded that communications within and between the emergency services ‘did not stand up on 7 July’. It further observed that individual emergency service personnel could not communicate effectively, in some cases with each other and, in other cases, with their control rooms…There have been substantial improvements brought about by the introduction of the CONNECT and AIRWAVE radio systems.”

Where are we now? How can interoperability help? Each day, the emergency services need to ensure that they are working with each other efficiently. Furthermore, working together takes on even more importance during major events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on raising this important subject. He made some very sound points about the need for national co-ordination, efficiencies and interoperability between emergency services. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Co-ordination is vital.

I am reminded, as you will be, too, Mr Havard, that only this weekend there were very difficult circumstances of flooding throughout mid and west Wales. Looking at the reports from places not too far from my constituency or yours, we see that major rescues were undertaken involving Royal Air Force Sea King helicopters from the military, inshore lifeboats, fire service rescue boats, Dyfed-Powys police, the Environment Agency, Ceredigion local council and voluntary agencies, all working together to respond to an emergency that flared up in a very short time.

A lot of planning is done for events such as flooding, major aircraft disasters, fires, building collapse, and indeed terrorist incidents. That planning is vital. Interoperability of the emergency services and the need to co-ordinate their efforts is an important part of the planning process, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby highlighted, it can be improved. Whatever any Government do, now and in the future, there are always efficiencies, improvements and information exchanges that can help those services to be provided in a much stronger and more efficient way and to prevent failures. I echo the tribute paid to those who put their lives on the line on any occasion. It is valued by all Members.

The flooding happened this weekend, but as has been mentioned, a simple, regular, unfortunate incident, such as a road crash, involves operability between services. Major events such as the recent jubilee weekend, the forthcoming Olympics and the events of 7/7 also demand responses from a range of agencies across the board. The riots of last summer involved police forces coming into London and needing to work with other police forces. I can recall as a Minister being in Cobra for 7/7, for fuel and prison strikes, and to look at the question of riots and services in Northern Ireland. There is a need for planning, but it is also vital that operability and information flow requirements are met.

The landscape that the hon. Gentleman outlined is indeed complicated. There are not only the three UK Government Departments that he mentioned, but, as I said in my intervention, the devolved Administrations, which deal with health and the fire service in Wales and Scotland and with much of everything in Northern Ireland. We have a range of bodies—the national health service, the coastguard, the police, the British Transport police, the Army and voluntary agencies outside Government, such as the air ambulance service, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross—that very often deal with emergency response.

The hon. Gentleman made some valid points, and I agree with him on the need for the dissemination of common language and an examination of efficiencies in equipment, and to ensure common equipment that is compatible with all services. I will return to Airwave in a moment, but I want to talk about common practices. I was struck by the example of arguments about whistles and what they mean. Common practice is important, and common information should be provided. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that there should be a drive toward shared facilities by Government and local authorities. The ambulance service in one town in my constituency is considering removing its station and sharing a facility with the police and fire service, to provide a better service—the same level of service but provided more efficiently. We can look forward to that.

In the few minutes available, I want to focus on the dichotomy highlighted by the debate between the need for greater central planning and control, with efficiencies driven from the centre through the Cabinet Office, Government co-operation and work with devolved Administrations, and the present Government agenda. I do not say that to be critical, because this is not the time to be critical; but it is fair to say that the Government agenda is driving many services into a more local context. That is true of a range of issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Rugby. Cobra will have an overarching view from the Cabinet Office, as Ministers and officials look at major international and national events, and there will be co-operation between the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and others at national level, but I want to put things into context and get a feeling from the Minister about how things fit together.

For example, on 15 November, England and Wales will get 43 police and crime commissioners, who will be able to set their budgets, issues and agendas locally. The National Policing Improvement Agency will soon be disbanded, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It recently issued guidance on issues pertinent to this debate. There is also the potential for the abolition of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has a co-ordinating, overarching responsibility for many policing issues. The Government have not yet made it clear to me what will replace it for the co-ordination of operational policing services and the provision of operational guidance on the issues we are debating today. In the context of search and rescue and coastal agencies, the Government recently split and put out to tender private contracts covering two different parts of the country. As I understand it, the Government have so far failed to provide the assurances needed about how that will work operationally. Major changes are being made to the coastguard service at local level—again, devolving downs and removing services.

For me, there is the smidgin of a question about how things will fit in together at the local level, when the Government’s agenda, rightly or wrongly—I have my own views—is driving things down locally. How can the co-ordination that the hon. Member for Rugby so eloquently advocated be required when police and crime commissioners decide their budgets, the National Policing Improvement Agency has disappeared and ACPO is no longer in place? How can it be achieved when contracts are let to the private sector for coastguard services and local government is under pressure in relation to fire services, reportedly resulting in, at the last count, more than 2,200 firefighters being cut, 50 stations being closed and 1,000 non-operational staff being lost? A separate issue is the loss of 16,000 police officers, which I shall always mention, in every debate about emergency services.

The localism agenda needs to be examined in the light of how we co-ordinate services nationally. What are the Government’s thoughts when the demands of operational activity are becoming ever more national and regional—including the Olympics, the jubilee, the terrorist threat and major operational challenges such as the flooding at the weekend? Set against those are the Government’s drive to localism—local decisions and local budget control. How will the Minister and his Department deal with mandating services and co-ordinating the efficiencies to which the hon. Members for Rugby and for Hexham rightly drew attention, when the localism agenda says, “Do what you want in the regions and nationally we will stand back a little bit more than perhaps we have in the past”?

Airwave is an important topic in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby, and I have also taken an interest in it, both as a Minister in the Department and, recently, shadowing that Department. The Minister will know that the current contract for Airwave comes to an end in 2016. In a written statement on 26 March the Home Secretary said that the

“management of the contract for the Airwave radio system and its replacement (including associated staff)”—[Official Report, 26 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 95WS.]

will be further considered by the Home Office shortly. She said that the matter will be transferred into the Home Office later this year. I have tabled questions to the Minister, and the answer I have had is:

“The programme is at an early stage and is in consultation with all stakeholders, including the police, to define their requirements.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 305W.]

I should be interested to know the Minister’s current thinking on Airwave, because in Government terms 2016 is not that far away. What is the Minister’s vision of Airwave’s replacement, post-2016? How does he envisage the replacement being commissioned? What does he think about the requirements for the system, taking on board the points that the hon. Member for Rugby made about operability, and the devolved Administrations and Government Departments? Does the Minister plan to have management of the system located in the Home Office permanently? What representations has he had from outside groups about the post-2016 contract? What discussion is engaged in with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the national health service, Scotland and Wales and other colleagues in his Department about the system requirements? It is important that there is efficiency in the system and value for money for the taxpayer, but it is also important to have something that works and meets the needs of the whole community.

I am anxious to give the Minister time to reply to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Rugby, but I want to mention the three driving forces that should come into play in his consideration. The first is effectiveness. The speed and type of response that the emergency services give save lives and prevent injury and are incredibly important. We need to ensure that whatever we do, and however we organise the system—I have some worries about the localism agenda supplanting the national and regional ones—there is a speedy and effective response to all incidents, and that it is planned in advance, measured on delivery, and evaluated afterwards for continuous improvement. There is a need for efficiency and cost to be considered by Ministers in relation to such matters as the potential helicopter contract now coming to light, and in terms of contracts generally. We need to consider how we drive efficiency and cost improvements in national contracts. Again I ask how, with 43 police and crime commissioners, the changes in the NHS and the localism agenda, the Minister believes we can drive the value for money agenda forward and make savings. Even more than in the past, the Minister will not be in control of how budgets are spent, unless he mandates forces and organisations to sign up to contracts, in which case he will have to set their criteria, and co-ordinate and oversee them.

[Guy Opperman]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an impressive speech, but I am a little curious about a couple of points. Clearly, there would always have been reductions and changes, even under the Opposition’s budgetary proposals. What would you have done differently to avoid the impacts that you describe as the Minister’s problem?

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I could outline what I would have done, but the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to say what he thinks.

[Mr Hanson]

I could argue about funding for ever, but this is not the time for such a discussion. The hon. Member for Rugby talked about the need for national standards, national training, national examination and national co-ordination, but the Government’s agenda is to drive things locally, with the new police and crime commissioners, a national health service that is freer from the Government, and a general lack of target setting. There is a dichotomy. Although I would happily debate at any time the difference between the 12% cuts that I proposed as Minister and the 20% cuts in police that the Government are introducing, my question is how, when the challenges are regional and national, the Minister intends to meet the challenges of greater co-ordination during a period of localism, when the levers he has available are becoming ever more distant from his Department. There is a real challenge there that he must address. How will he drive forward that agenda? How will he make those efficiencies and savings, and who ultimately retains accountability in that changing landscape?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Havard. I echo the clear and common message that has emerged from this debate, which is to thank the emergency services for their contribution, day in, day out, to keeping us safe. I thank them for their significant professionalism and bravery, examples of which have been cited during the debate. I am sure that the House would underline that clear message of gratitude for the work of our blue-light emergency services.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate and on chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the emergency services, following that work through and facilitating a good and constructive discussion on the issues that are relevant to interoperability, to which I will seek to respond in my comments. I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on some of the work that we have been doing to support the emergency services and to promote a better joined-up working approach.

It is clear that police, fire and ambulance teams work together on a daily basis with successful outcomes. Although the response to major incidents from our emergency services is among the best in the world, we are not complacent. The emergency services face significant challenges in responding to major incidents, particularly in the initial stages of a complex and fast-moving situation when the picture can be confusing and there may be unseen dangers. The three services must be able to come together as quickly as possible to share information about what is going on, to manage the risks and rescue any casualties. When the emergency services work together in that way, they save lives.

We continue to learn from events, such as the 7/7 London bombings and the shootings in Cumbria, and from regular national exercises designed to test the joint response. The severe impact and complexity of major incidents and other civil emergencies mean that we must strive for continuous improvement in the combined performance of the emergency services in joint operations.

The Home Secretary has asked the emergency services to set up a new programme of work designed to further improve our joint response to emergencies. The overall aim is to ensure that the blue-light services are trained and exercised to work together as effectively as possible in response to a major incident, including fast-moving terrorist scenarios, so that as many lives as possible can be saved.

The programme will be led by the emergency services through a joint forum, which will enable them systematically to plan, test and learn together. We fully support the delivery of the programme and have provided dedicated resources to look at how future improvements can be made.

I am conscious that a number of contributions highlighted the need for effective co-ordination and joined-up working at national level. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that the Government are working collectively on this important issue. There have been a number of cross-departmental ministerial meetings to agree how to promote interoperability. The most recent was last month when the Home Secretary and her colleagues met senior representatives from the emergency services to discuss the plan for the new joint emergency services interoperability programme, which I will talk about in more detail shortly.

It is also worth highlighting that the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working closely together on a daily basis. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for the fire and rescue service, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will oversee that work through a cross-departmental ministerial board. We understand that we cannot work in silos and that a unified Government response is required.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) rightly highlights the need for engagement with the devolved Administrations, as policing, health and fire and rescue are devolved matters. We continue to work with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations, as do our emergency service partners, on the breadth of the programme, to promote a consistent approach to the development of responses and response capabilities and to facilitate the sharing of best practice.

At local level, the local resilience forums have an important role to play. Emergency services are required by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to come together with other organisations defined as Category 1 or Category 2 responders to identify and assess the risks in the area and develop and validate plans to respond to them.

Let me talk a bit more about how we will address the need for overarching co-ordination. At national level, the Government have set out in both the draft strategic policing requirement and the draft fire and rescue national framework, the requirement for connectivity between the emergency services. The strategic policing requirement will, for the first time, set out the national threats and the appropriate national policing capabilities that are required to counter them. The election of police and crime commissioners allows Government to get out of the way of local policing, rightly putting accountability in the hands of local people. The strategic policing requirement demonstrates our commitment to get a better grip on the national threats that we face and to ensure a unified approach. Under the strategic policing requirement, police forces will consider consistency between forces and connectivity with other emergency services so that we can improve interoperability between the police, other blue-light emergency responders and other partners in responding to significant emergencies.

The new police professional body will take on the policy functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers and set standards for police professionals. It will ensure that police officers and police staff have a common skill-set and common tactics, where appropriate.

We have talked about the need for interoperability. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said that it was important to recognise joint working between individual agencies: the fire service, the ambulance service, the police and other agencies. Equally, there is a need for individual agencies to operate effectively themselves, and communication is certainly one element of that. I shall highlight some of the work that has been done around communication.

At this stage of the programme, our highest priority is the interoperability of police, fire and ambulance responders operating in a time-critical environment, where speed and accuracy of information are fundamental to the saving of life. However, we accept that the requirement for interoperability extends to a wider group of emergency responders and other agencies, who will be involved in and consulted on the development and implementation of the programme. I join right hon. and hon. Members in praising the work of local resilience forums, including their efforts to bring local responders together and to plan for risks that local communities might need to deal with, and I agree that such forums are a strong example of interoperability in action.

Future work, led by the joint emergency services interoperability programme, will ensure that responders have effective communications, guidance, training and exercises to support their response to a major incident. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the programme will also consider opportunities for equipment and procurement sharing.

There are three key priority areas for the programme. The first is communications. Rapid sharing of information and intelligence is at the core of an effective response. It is needed to establish the type of incident, and to mobilise and co-ordinate the appropriate response. Ongoing communication within and between the emergency services will support on-scene commanders, who need to work together to make decisions and take urgent action.

The sharing of information within and between the emergency services is supported by Airwave radio communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby clearly highlighted the importance of strengthened joint communication. The programme will seek to ensure a common approach to the use of mobile communications during major incidents. Effective communications will also be enabled by the national resilience extranet, which is an information-sharing tool. In addition, the Government are working to pilot the direct electronic incident transfer, which will allow the electronic exchange of incident logs between front-line responders.

The right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted the future of Airwave and it might assist him if I gave a further response on that subject. The Airwave contract across the police and other emergency services expires between 2016 and 2020; I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated that that was the case. As a consequence, the emergency services mobile communications programme has been commissioned by the Home Office to examine potential replacement solutions for the emergency services post-Airwave. Future service provision will be based on a review of the anticipated operational needs of the emergency services, and the technical capabilities and commercial opportunities available. Various technologies are being considered, but at the moment the programme is at an early stage of technology evaluation, with the first version of the strategic outline business case due in October.

For the future, interdependent relationships with the emergency services mobile communications programme will ensure that interoperability is a central feature of the future replacement for the Airwave service, when the current commercial contract expires. We will certainly provide further details to the House, as and when they are available.

[Mr Hanson]

I seek clarification from the Minister on just one point. Will it be mandated that police commissioners have to allocate budgets to purchase the system replacing Airwave? Is that the plan?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is entirely right that we encourage the police to see more diversity in their ranks. There are many ways in which we do want to see more women and people from black and minority ethnic communities joining the police force and being able to press through the ranks, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that in looking at these issues we do not want bureaucratic processes to take over. Either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will meet him to discuss this.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Even if I accepted what the Home Secretary said about the changes in administrative burdens, the reality is that 16,000 police officers are being lost. Last week at the Police Federation conference, they told me that 20% cuts would lead to administrative workloads increasing, not decreasing. Only today, the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys warned of “an austerity crime wave” as a result of the Government’s approach to policing. Will the Home Secretary now recognise that despite any package of policies she takes forward on administration, there will be fewer police on the beat and more administrative work to do?

[Mrs May]

No, the whole point of the approach the Government are taking is that we are cutting the bureaucracy for police to enable them to spend more time on the beat. The challenge is this: I was willing to go to the Police Federation conference and be absolutely honest with the police about what we are doing. I trust that the message that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow policing Minister gave to the police was that Labour Front Benchers support the same level of cuts in funding as the Government are putting through, and the impact that that would have. I wonder if the shadow policing Minister told the police about his view that £600 million should be taken out of police overtime.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am afraid that that answer is not really good enough. On what basis has the Minister determined that an exemption from cashless payments should be made for itinerant collectors of scrap metal? Will that not drive a Steptoe and Son-sized coach and horses through the rules, and will not people such as his hon. Friends whose communities have lost metal in war memorials, gates and rails be appalled by the existence of that loophole?

[James Brokenshire]

I would never cast the shadow policing Minister in the role of Del Boy, but I would say to him that the provisions we have brought forward will ensure that those involved in door-to-door selling must trade through a registered scrap metal dealership. They will therefore be subject to the restrictions on cashless payment. That underlines the fact that those itinerant collectors need to be registered and approved by local authorities and police—another form or enforcement that needs to be focused on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on an important issue, and I am happy to tell her that last year we removed more than 4,500 foreign national offenders, many of whom had perpetrated crimes. We believe that when a foreign criminal poses a risk to the public, they should stay in detention, and we always vigorously oppose bail, but the UK Border Agency has to act within the law. However, foreign criminals in the community awaiting deportation will be subject to stringent reporting restrictions, and every effort is always made to remove them from the country as soon as possible.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Why has the Home Secretary ruled out a free-post leaflet or candidate booklet for police and crime commissioner elections? Will she now heed the serious concerns raised by the Electoral Commission that internet-only access to candidate materials will disadvantage the poor, the old and those in rural areas—and, accordingly, help to address the poor turnout—or is that the intention?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?

[James Brokenshire]

The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.

I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.

I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.

When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.

The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would

“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”

This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Government just a little leeway, after only two years, in untangling the giant pile of messy powers of entry that his Government left the coalition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman has walked directly into my fist. “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda” stated:

“When he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown pledged to introduce a new liberty test to curtail powers of entry…He commissioned Lord West to undertake a review of entry powers. A final report by Lord West was supposed to be published by spring 2009, but has been continually delayed and kicked into the long grass.”

Lord Henley discussed that very point in another place, and the Minister referred to it today.

Clause 42, “Duty to review certain existing powers of entry”, places on Ministers of the Crown a duty to review relevant powers of entry within a relevant period, which happens to be two years. I may not be a great mathematician, but as I recall, we were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009, yet now we cannot expect a final report until 2013 if the Bill receives Royal Assent. I ask the Minister and the hon. Gentleman whether that qualifies as kicking the matter into the long grass. I fear that it does. My noble Friend Lord West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass by delaying the review of powers of entry. However, clause 42 seems to provide for the very delay for which the Minister criticised us when he was the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attempt, which we hear so often from the Opposition, to rewrite history and demonstrate Labour’s commitment to liberty. There are Government Members who would have been delighted if measures on powers of entry had been introduced by now, but I put it to him that the Government’s caution merely reflects a mature and sensible approach rather than the more gung-ho tone that some might take towards liberty.

[Mr Hanson]

It was mature and sensible reflection when we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009-10, when I was a Minister in the Home Office. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has planted his flag in the ground on this issue, because he is holding true to the Conservative manifesto commitment. I am genuinely surprised that there are not more Government Back Benchers wanting to hold the Government to account for why they are not fulfilling their manifesto commitment. Perhaps he will do that in due course.

My colleagues in another place supported the amendments, so that we could have this debate today and get the Minister’s comments on record. Concerns were raised, for example, about the term “trading standards officers”, which is not a recognised term. I would welcome him addressing those concerns.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, we have some concerns about the review provided for under clause 42. It places a duty on Secretaries of State to review the powers of entry for which they are responsible and report back to Parliament within two years of Royal Assent, following the necessary detailed analysis. As I said, we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass, but the Government must consider 2013 shorter grass than 2011, which is when we would have had the review.

That aside, the purpose of the review under clause 42 will be to have each individual power of entry examined, to determine whether it is still required or whether it should be repealed, have safeguards added to it or be consolidated with similar powers to reduce the overall number. As we are already two years into the Government’s time in office and face the prospect of another two years before we hear back from the review, I do not believe I am far amiss in saying to the Minister and the hon. Member for Wycombe that the Government are potentially ducking the issue and leading the review into longer grass than we planned.

I would like some updates from the Minister on the points we have made. How long does he expect each Secretary of State to undertake the review? Does he expect the reviews from each Department to be completed before the end of the two-year period? Will he report back on the reviews en masse, when all Departments have completed them, or will he do so when individual Departments have completed reviews on their areas of responsibility?

Does the Minister expect to report back earlier than in two years’ time? As I have mentioned, what are the sanctions on Secretaries of State who do not meet the target? Will he report back on that? How does he expect Secretaries of State who have not met the target to report to the House? Can he guarantee that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the review in full once it is published? Will he give some indication of how many legislative proposals on power of entry he expects to be reviewed and in due course repealed? According to the Conservative quality of life manifesto, there are 1,242 state powers of entry. Will the Minister indicate whether he has set targets for the outcome of the review? How many of those will be in place at the end of the review? Will he indicate how many of those powers of entry will in due course be on the bonfire that he promised in the manifesto?

The Conservative Government promised to cut back intrusive power of entry into homes. I am interested as to whether the Minister and his team will ultimately achieve that objective. We need clarity about the review. The Opposition will not support the amendments because we do not feel they are valuable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Minister’s opening remarks gave a degree of reassurance on the Government’s position, but I feel that the starting point should be that the forces of law and order and of the state should not as a matter of routine have the right to enter people’s houses. One of the most important freedoms that we enjoy as British subjects is that if somebody comes into our house without our invitation, it must be because some important crime has been committed, or there is some emergency or another immediate reason. The problem with the Minister’s reassurance is that there is always a suspicion that Governments do what is convenient rather than what is right, and that the bureaucrat always feels that it is easier to enter somebody’s home or office than to go through a complex procedure—to get a warrant or to obtain a justice of the peace’s authorisation—to go into somebody’s property.

I remember listening to a brilliant speech by the present Attorney-General when the Conservative party was in opposition and when pulling back on such warrants was our formal policy. As the Minister has done today, my right hon. and learned Friend went through the vast numbers of powers that have built up—600 have been introduced in recent years and there are as many as 1,300 in total. How minor some of them are. If a council inspector believes that there is a flea infestation, he can enter somebody’s home to see whether fleas are hopping about. That was introduced in the 1930s, so it is not part of the recent accumulation of powers, but it reflects a century of belief in the big state and of allowing increasing powers to the state to take steps that are more convenient than necessary.

This House is always here to protect the rights and liberties of the individual against the over-mighty Executive. Although I believe the present Government are undoubtedly the greatest Government in the history of mankind, it is none the less in the nature of Governments to try to increase the powers they have, because it is always more convenient to do so. One can imagine the advice from officials to Ministers—“Minister, it will be easier and quicker and save money if we do this”—but that must be weighed by the House against the historic and ancient rights that we have enjoyed and that are so important to us.

We have enjoyed these freedoms to the great benefit of our nation and prosperity. The feeling of security that people have in their home—the feeling that they can go about their lawful business in their home without the forces of the state coming in to question what they are doing or how they are living—has allowed us to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Those ancient freedoms have underpinned all of that not just in recent years, but over many centuries. We have always been one of the freest countries in the world and one that has protected the property and rights of subjects against an over-mighty Crown more strongly than other nations have been willing to do.

Although I have received—I think—sufficient reassurance from the Minister to support the amendments, I hope that the Government will carry out the review with the greatest urgency. Many people would have been more sympathetic to the Government’s view if, instead of just a rejecting motion, they had tabled an amendment with a bit more detail on the time scale, or perhaps a requirement that if the review is not finished in two years, any power that has not been reviewed must fall or be the subject of a warrant or the agreement of the person whose property is to be invaded.

I will end my brief remarks by reminding the House of the words of Pitt the Elder—known as the Great Commoner, that proud upholder of liberties in the 18th century. What he said should ring true today for all subjects of Her Majesty:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter”.

That is a principle that we ought to uphold and fight for. The Government should push ahead as fast as possible to ensure that these 1,300 powers are cut right back purely to those that are essential in the fight to maintain law and order or to put out fires.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.

The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health, to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.

I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.

It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.

I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?

[James Brokenshire]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.

I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.

A New Clause

Stalking

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.

Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if someone’s DNA is held on a database, it does not impinge on their freedoms to go about their daily lawful business, unimpeded in anything they want to do? Does he further agree that people’s freedoms are enhanced by having as many murderers, rapists and other serious offenders brought to justice and put behind bars, rather than having them wandering the streets because their DNA is not on a database?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I want to be clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about this Lords amendment. Does he accept that the amendment would mean that somebody accused and arrested only once for a malicious sexual offence would have their DNA kept for ever—in clear contravention of the European Court’s ruling? Is he admitting that his amendment is deeply flawed and that he is using it merely as a debating point rather than planning to insist on a vote—in other words, that he does not believe in his own amendment?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that through Lords amendments, we are seeking to find a mechanism to debate serious issues such as rape and other serious crimes. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes rape and a range of associated issues, which we want to debate. The amendment might not have been tabled perfectly; it was done at the last minute in order to find a way to discuss the key issues. We wanted the Government to hear again, before the Bill receives its Royal Assent, arguments from people such as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and some of my hon. Friends who have real and genuine concerns. We do not want the Government to proceed with allowing the DNA of some individuals to be destroyed earlier than it needs to be, as this will potentially put at risk individuals in the community at large.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but surely he must recognise that there are shades of grey in this debate. He says that we need to be protected from murderers and rapists, but many law-abiding citizens have concerns about being fitted up by the police or the possibility of the science and technology proving faulty—and who knows where DNA technology will be in 20 or 30 years’ time? Does he not recognise that there are shades of grey in this particular debate, and that painting it in the simplistic way he does—although it is good that we are having this debate—rather debases his argument?

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to turn this into a simplistic debate. As Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and I wrestled with officials for many months about where to draw the line on this matter. We recognised that there were different places to draw it. What we tried to do in government was to draw the line at the furthest point we possibly could to ensure that we maximised the police’s ability to collect and examine DNA so that subsequent crimes could be solved by its use. Because rape and murder are not always one-off crimes but repeat offences, we wanted to prevent further victims downstream. We looked at that in the light of our European responsibilities, and we drew the line at six years.

To answer the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I still wish to draw the line at six years today. I accept that the amendment may be technically flawed, but its purpose, given the limited opportunities available, was to put our concerns to the Minister, as I have explained. We want to stress that the impact of sexual offences and other serious crimes needs to be examined. What is the clear difference between the Minister and me? It is the fact that his proposals to restrict the use of DNA put at risk people’s lives and their ability to enjoy them freely without being subjected to sexual offences. I fear that the Minister and I will continue to disagree on those issues. Let me tell him that the gut instinct of many Conservative Members is to share the gut instincts of many Labour Members. What we are trying to do is at least to give the Minister an opportunity to look at these issues again.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are very concerned about the way in which DNA is collected and stored? Clearly, when someone has been reported, questioned and possibly arrested by the police, but then exonerated—with no conviction and in many cases no trial—surely there is no case for storing their DNA. This is what leads to a great sense of unease for many people and probably diminishes relations between the community and the police as a result. Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about that? I know that he had to make these judgments as a Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

We did have to make those judgments when we were in government, and our judgment was that having the envelope of six years was consistent with our European obligations, and also with the pattern of offending. If people had not reoffended within the six years, the likelihood of further offences diminished considerably. People tended to reoffend within a one-year to six-year period. I genuinely take my hon. Friend’s concerns about the retention of DNA impacting on people’s civil liberties. However, I support what the hon. Member for Shipley said, as being raped, murdered or subjected to serious crimes also has an impact on people’s civil liberties.

As a Minister I had to make a balanced judgment, and the judgment reached by me and by my colleagues was that six years was an appropriate limit. There is an honest disagreement between the present Minister and me about that.

The Government’s own research—research carried out by the Home Office in July 2010—found that 23,000 people every year whose DNA would be retained on the database as a result of our proposals, but that would not be as a result of the Government’s, would commit further offences. We are talking about 23,000 further offences. My amendment may be flawed—I do not have recourse to all the fine civil servants who are available to the Department—but my aim was to initiate a discussion about sexual offences, and to persuade the Minister to reflect on the issues once more before the Government’s proposals became law.

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister know of any innocent person who has been negatively affected by the placing of his details on a DNA database? This is a question of balance. The Government’s main aim appears to be to ensure that the DNA of someone who has not committed a crime is not put on the database, but as far as I know that does such people no harm. Surely a greater danger is posed by the person whose DNA should be on the database but is not, and who then commits a crime that is not detected.

[Mr Hanson]

I hesitate to agree with the hon. Gentleman yet again, but I do agree with him. As far as I am aware, the fact that someone’s DNA is on the database under the 2010 Act is known only by the police—if they wish to examine it—and by the person concerned, and they can tell whoever they wish to tell, or alternatively tell no one. It is not a matter of public knowledge.

This is the nub of my amendment, flawed though it is. Of the 23,000 people I mentioned earlier, about 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. I simply ask—as I have on every occasion when I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue—why we should allow that to happen when we have the ability, potentially, to prevent it from happening.

[Mr Buckland]

Nonsense.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a debate about this and there is an honest disagreement between the Minister and me, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the DNA database, as constituted under the 2010 Act, would prevent those 6,000 serious crimes from taking place. He may shake his head, but that is what he needs to recognise.

Let me give an example involving an event that took place after our debate on 10 October. A newspaper report, headed “Warning as bogus cab driver is jailed for rape”, stated:

“Marcos De Souza, 32, was trapped because his DNA was held on file even though he had no criminal record. The Brazilian had lured the drunken 19-year-old into his car as she left a house party in Camden in February.

The victim was so drunk the sex predator believed she would never remember what was about to happen to her…But when she arrived home dishevelled, her boyfriend encouraged her to call police and De Souza’s DNA was found after tests. The sex predator was traced because police had taken his DNA when he was arrested after a previous girlfriend claimed he had assaulted her. The case was discontinued but his profile was retained on the national database.”

That DNA would not have been retained under the Government’s current proposals.

I accept that my amendment is not perfect. I may not have advanced the same argument in the past, and it is possible that I shall not do so in the future. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to reflect again on the views of the hon. Member for Shipley and other Members.

[Keith Vaz]

I apologise for missing the earlier part of my right hon. Friend’s no doubt excellent speech. Given that his amendment is raising a number of issues, will he respond to the concern that some of us feel about the disproportionate number of black and Asian people whose names and details are on the database? There seems to be no explanation for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I consider the retention of the six-year limit specified by the 2010 Act to be a proportionate response. Certainly issues related to stop-and-search powers and charging need to be investigated in the context of police practice, but the fact remains that the DNA that is being kept under the Act has prevented the committing of further crimes, and would continue to do so if the six-year period were retained. I am happy for my right hon. Friend to take up the issue of how DNA is taken in the first place, and to draw attention to instances in which people are picked up and charged but not convicted, or picked up and not charged at all. However, I venture to suggest that that issue is separate from the one that we are considering, which is the retention of DNA over a long period.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman? The basic principle being advanced is that the retention of DNA prevents further crimes, but I think that what he really means is that it assists in the detection of further crimes. The mere holding of DNA would not have prevented even the case that he cited.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid that I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. Someone might be picked up as a result of the retention of DNA following the commission of one crime, but how many times has the hon. Gentleman seen reports about serial rapists or serial murderers on the television news? Potential further victims might not be actual victims because the individual concerned had been apprehended owing to the collection of his DNA. As I have said, I accept that my amendment is flawed, but I believe that the principle behind the use of DNA and the retention of the six-year period for the purpose of dealing with serious sexual crimes is fundamental.

[Mike Crockart]

I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he should be very careful about the language that he uses in debates such as this. He should not blindly claim that the retention of DNA would prevent 6,500 further offences, as he did earlier, because that is simply not correct. The retention of DNA would contribute to detection, but it would not prevent.

[Mr Hanson]

I venture to disagree. The figures that I gave were Home Office figures produced for the Minister in July 2010.

The point that I am making, which I think is valid, is that the retention of DNA could, in a number of cases, prevent repeat offences. That is why the hon. Member for Shipley supports the amendment, and why my hon. Friends agree with what I have said. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is sometimes a case of making a balanced judgment. We make judgments as Ministers, and the six-years judgment was the one that we made within the envelope that was available to us. I believe that it was the right judgment, and my amendments—which I accept are flawed—were tabled so that we could debate the principle again.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I have been following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with some interest. Would it not be more consistent with his argument about prevention if everyone’s details were put on a DNA database—not that I am recommending such a course of action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is a range of views in the House, but what we have been trying to do consistently, both in opposition and in government, is maximise the amount of time for which we can retain DNA within European law, and we believe that six years is an appropriate period. I believe—and Home Office information on future crimes confirms—that that can help us to catch criminals and bring people to justice, and indeed it has done so. I ask the Minister to think again before it is too late. I welcome the changes that he has made in Lords amendments 1 and 2, I welcome his introduction of further safeguards, I welcome the fact that Lords amendment 2 allows DNA samples to be examined for different periods, and indeed I welcome the changes that he has made generally. I simply ask why we have not considered them in a wider context so far.

I want to say a little about two amendments which, at a very late stage, were grouped with the DNA proposals. Lords amendment 9 deals with biometric testing in schools. It changes the law so that only one parent, rather than both parents, must give written consent, but retains the position whereby either parent can withdraw consent. Our amendment changes the wording from “and” to “or” so that biometric data can be collected if one parent has given consent or neither parent has withdrawn consent.

[Dr Huppert]

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments are carefully drafted and that he intends what they state. Does he agree that the consequence of that change would be as follows: if no parent has consented but neither has actively objected, that would count as consent—in other words, consent would be assumed even if neither parent had ever said they were happy for that to happen?

[Mr Hanson]

Yes; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has dealt with this matter in Committee and throughout the Bill’s passage, and that is the position of the official Opposition.

We note the amendments proposed in the other place by the Government, and there has been some recognition that the original clauses as drafted were far too onerous, as they needed both parents to give written consent for biometric data to be taken from the child. The amendments also correct an omission, by recognising that not all children have parents, and that those with caring responsibilities needed to be included in this provision for it to be able to work effectively. However, we also note that one parent can still overrule the consent of the other in agreeing for the child to give biometric data, which, again, can cause confusion for schools. We think that, overall, this policy is still unwieldy and unmanageable for most schools.

Furthermore, we do not believe that allowing a child to override their parents’ wish to allow biometric data to be taken is sensible or correct. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that would be the case under the proposals as they currently stand. There does not appear to be any other circumstance in which a child of, for example, five years of age can overrule parental consent. Also, we note that if the parents have refused to give consent, the child is not in a position to override the parents’ wishes if the child chooses to give consent. We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9 would be a further sensible step, by allowing schools to operate this policy in a more manageable way by presuming an acceptance of biometric data being taken if no contact is made by the parents or carers once they have been notified.

I welcome Lords amendment 27. It gives a more prominent role to Parliament. As I have argued previously, it would be appropriate for the Government to lay an order before the House in order to ensure that these matters are dealt with during recesses or general election campaigns. It is important that the Government lay an order before the House, but it is also important that the Government make a statement as to the purposes of the order. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will not lay any order before the House without making a statement to the House explaining the reasons for seeking an order in those exceptional circumstances.

I have concerns about Lords amendment 28. It will allow the Government to withdraw temporary extensions to anti-terror measures without any parliamentary procedure at all. The effect will be to demand that the Government must seek parliamentary approval when strengthening anti-terror measures, but that they can weaken anti-terror measures without consulting Parliament. I heard the Minister’s explanation of that. Temporary extension will be brought in only during times of exceptional risk and the individuals held under these measures will be considered a serious threat to national security. Therefore, if Parliament has had to decide that these measures are necessary in the first instance, Parliament should also get to decide that these powers are no longer necessary. There is no more important issue than protecting the public, but we must have an explanation and an order placed before the House when these powers are revoked.

I accept that our amendment is flawed and does not achieve the objective I would wish, but there are major issues in respect of the retention of DNA which the Minister should, even at this late stage, reconsider and re-examine in detail. I hope he will also answer the questions I asked about counter-terrorism and biometrics in school.

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

I wish to raise one specific issue in relation to Lords amendment 3, and I put on the record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Ministers propose that the possible holding of DNA on the database beyond the period covered by the legislation could be agreed on application to a district judge. My understanding is that they have drawn on the experience in Scotland, where agreement from the sheriff and the sheriff courts is required. Has consideration been given to extending that provision to cover justices of the peace who are members of the lay magistracy? Unlike in Scotland, the magistrates court works as a single bench; there is no hierarchical difference or difference in terms of courts between district judges and lay magistrates.

Metal Theft

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and the hon. Members for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) for securing this debate on behalf of the all-party group. Today has been one of those rare occasions on which the House has a unanimity about it, as it does regarding our objectives for the Bill. Let me add to that unanimity by saying that the Opposition support the motion and hope that the Government will too, because urgent action is needed on metal theft.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) reminded us, this has been an emerging and long-standing problem. Indeed, Operation Fragment, which he commenced when he was at the Home Office, when I had the privilege of sharing an office with him at that Department, was an important effort in developing a programme to tackle metal theft at the end of the previous Government. Sadly, the problem has increased in that time, although this is not the fault of the current Government. About 15,000 tonnes of metal are stolen each year, with as much as half of that being stolen from scrap metal dealers themselves, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) mentioned. Industry and commercial victims agree that the figure is an underestimate. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has said, there is still a significant problem with metal theft across the board.

There is a particular problem with churches, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry): 2011 was the worst year on record for the number of metal thefts from churches, with more than 2,500 claims. The problem of insurance has been drawn to the attention of the House today.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

In Bournemouth, we find that it is not just individuals who steal metal but organised groups. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to legislate not just against individuals but against those who organise the crime?

[Mr Hanson]

Serious organised crime as well as opportunistic individuals are behind metal theft.

Cable theft caused the delay or cancellation of more than 35,000 national rail services, with more than 365,000 minutes of delay and a £16 million bill. Those points were made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Her Committee’s report highlighted them particularly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has played a role in raising the issue.

Every day, there are eight actual or attempted thefts on railways. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who illustrated the impact of metal theft on small businesses in his constituency.

Over the past year, 10 people have been killed in metal theft incidents. The gas leak referred to by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) was an extremely important incident. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that metal theft costs the UK about £770 million a year, a figure that the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) showed has been rising over the past few months.

I am most struck by the despicable nature of the crime. In his contribution, the hon. Member for Worcester said that door-knockers had been stolen from old people’s homes. People have talked about war memorials. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke about the theft of a memorial in the city of Hull for fishermen lost at sea.

These crimes are committed by people who do not respect their neighbours, their communities or the people who live in them, so I welcome the fact that the Government have acted to tackle metal theft head-on, but I genuinely say to the House that they need to go much further. I welcome the proposals to end cashless payments, as did the hon. Members for Congleton and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The proposals to increase fines are welcome too, but that is only part of what is required. The motion today, and its support from Members, has indicated that the House agrees.

I worry that the situation could be made worse by the amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that Lord Henley has indicated he will table on Report, which is likely to take place next month. Banning cash transactions, while positive, will not of itself solve the problem. Legitimate scrap yards will go cashless, but some yards, as has been said, will continue to take cash and to operate a black market. Only yesterday evening in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rosser tabled an amendment that would give the police greater powers of entry and to shut down rogue scrap metal yards—measures welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) and others. Those proposals are in the motion and were welcomed by Members this evening, yet the vote last night—for vote there was, Mr Deputy Speaker—was lost by six.

Lord Henley argued against the amendment, but he should read the debate we have held today. The feeling on both sides of the House is that it is an important proposal, so he needs to revisit it when he and his officials draft amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) said, and as Lord Henley himself said last night, the 1964 Act is “beyond its sell-by date.” It was designed for the time of Steptoe and Son, not for the multifaceted organised criminals and opportunists of today. Lord Henley said:

“We wish to see a reform to that Act as soon as is possible, and we will make sure that we do it…We are looking for a coherent package of measures to tackle metal theft.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 52-4.]

Let me be presumptuous and recommend that Lord Henley look at the motion in detail. I commend the suggestions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on tackling metal theft. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned, those who follow best practice already do the things that the motion suggests.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has introduced proposals to tackle metal theft, and that plan is supported by the British Transport police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Neighbourhood Watch, BT, E.ON, energy networks, and Network Rail, to name but a few. It includes powers of entry for police, and tougher powers for them to close down rogue traders—a proposal that has been welcomed tonight across the board. It means that anyone selling scrap has to provide proof of identity, which will be recorded at the point of sale—again, that has been welcomed tonight across the board. It includes licensing scrap metal dealers, rather than the current system of registration with local authorities. It means, yes, doing what the Government say they are doing— banning cash transactions, especially for large-scale, high-value scrap metal transactions.

Those measures will allow legitimate trade to continue, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) wants, but, by our making it harder and more expensive for opportunists and organised criminals to profit from metal theft, the cowboy traders that he mentioned will feel the burden of those measures very strongly. Prevention can play an important part. Private sector solutions such as SmartWater, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, are important. Other suggestions, such as the one made by the hon. Member for Sherwood, for alternatives to lead, are valuable, and can be looked at by the private sector.

We cannot, however, get away from the fact the House has spoken with one voice, and it wants the changes proposed in the motion. The Opposition support those measures, and I want the Minister to support them too. We need a much tougher licensing regime, and we must ensure that we require people to do the things that I have outlined so that we can stop extensive metal theft. The Minister will say that she certainly supports the banning of cash transactions. She will say that she supports increased fines, but if she says that she does not support the other measures in the motion she must explain to the House and to her hon. Friends why not, and why she will not undertake those actions. From my perspective—and I think that I speak for most Members who have spoken tonight, not on a party political basis, but on a House of Commons against the Government basis—those are important measures that we want collectively, across the board.

The motion was drafted by the all-party group, with support from every party. It has the support of every Member who has spoken tonight. Time is pressing, and we need to do this. Households face power cuts, commuters face increased delays, and churches and public buildings have been damaged. If the Minister does not support the motion, will she explain to the House why not? I genuinely hope, however, that she does and that she drafts measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in a different way. I will even forget the fact that her party voted against the amendment in the other place. I urge her to support such proposals, and she will receive a great cheer from the House when she does.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Essex police, and to their work in his constituency and others covered by that force. We do indeed see the value of community-led policing, and that is why chief constables up and down the country are making every effort to ensure that they can get police officers out from back-office posts and on to the front line, where people want to see them.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The latest crime figures show that personal crimes of robbery, burglary and theft have gone up by 11% in the past year—the largest increase in more than a decade. Contrary to what the Home Secretary has just said, the independent inspectorate of policing has said that a 10% cut in police numbers will lead to a 3% increase in property crime. Quite frankly, the Home Secretary should be cutting crime, not police officers. Will she urgently revisit plans to cut 16,000 police from our streets?

[Mrs May]

Well, really, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he knows full well there is no direct link—there is no simple link—between crime and—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Of course dealing with budget reductions is challenging for police forces, but we are convinced that they can do it. I recently met members of the Nottinghamshire force, including the chief constable, and we discussed the issues. The chief constable has acknowledged the difficulty of the decisions involved, but has also said that she is

“doing all we can to protect frontline services and target resources to areas where the public are most commonly affected”.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The police settlement, which, as the Minister acknowledged, was published last week, takes a further £700 million out of the police budget at a time when we are seeing worrying increases in crime, with violent crime, burglary and theft all going up in last month’s figures. Senior police officers have already expressed their concern that the settlement means they will have to do far more than can be achieved through efficiency savings. If the police, in responding to this consultation, feel that the settlement is inadequate to meet policing challenges next year, will the Minister think again? Will he ensure that the 3,000 extra police officers that the Liberal Democrats called for are put in place?

[Nick Herbert]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about these issues. He is trying to give the impression that a further reduction in funding has been announced, but he knows that that is not the case; these reductions were announced beforehand, as part of the review, and they have not changed in relation to the proposed allocation for forces. I also note that he is coming forward with his familiar solution—Labour’s only policy on the police—which is to call for more public spending. It is that attitude that got this country into the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. Perhaps he might have something more constructive to say about policing in future.