Police Grant

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The Suffolk PCC and chief constable have lobbied me on that issue—in fact, the Suffolk PCC came in the past week or two to make that very point. There is a piece of work to do at the moment. The technical reference group and senior group will work through the issues and make those recommendations to us. I will not prejudge the outcome; it is right to let them and the experts do their work on what the fundamentals should be.

The settlement also includes extra resources for national programmes including the transformation fund, which enables forces to undertake essential policing reform. Last year, we provided a planning assumption to the House to help PCCs. We are meeting our planning assumption for stable force-level funding. That means that every PCC who maximises their local precept income this year and in 2017-18 will receive at least the same direct resource funding in cash that they received in 2015-16.

I can also report to the House that local council tax precept income has increased faster than expected. That means that we can not only meet our planning assumption on stable local funding for PCCs but increase our national investment in police reform and transformation faster than expected. That will ensure that police leaders are given the tools to support reform, and the capability to respond to the changing nature of crime and to protect the vulnerable.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I hope that the Minister agrees that Durham has an outstanding Labour PCC in Ron Hogg and a first-rate chief constable, who is working hard not only to drive up standards but to make the force more efficient. Does the Minister recognise that forces such as Durham’s are hindered when it comes to raising the precept? Some 55% of properties in Durham are in band A, so an increase there would not generate a great deal of cash compared with what Surrey or somewhere else would receive.

[Brandon Lewis]

I recognise that Durham has a very good police force with an excellent chief constable. I met the chief constable and PCC pretty recently when they came to outline some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. There are differences around the country and we must recognise that different areas will have different abilities to raise money locally according to the precept and their council tax base. The hon. Gentleman is right. I represent a constituency in which about 80% of properties fall into the lower council tax bands, so I fully appreciate his point. But the funding settlement is not the only source of money for police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

Not at the moment.

With the foundations of the police-led process firmly in place, more can now be done to develop compelling investment proposals at scale. The fund should continue to allow the best ideas from across policing for transformational change to be developed and delivered.

In 2017-18, we will invest a further £32 million to continue a major uplift in firearms capability and capacity so that we can respond quickly and forcefully to any firearms attack. I expect to see ambitious proposals, endorsed by the National Crime Agency, to go further and increase our capability to tackle serious and organised crime, which is a growing, dynamic and diverse national security threat that costs the United Kingdom at least £24 billion a year. It leads to loss of life, preys on the vulnerable, creates negative role models in our communities and can deprive people of their security and prosperity. But we cannot simply rely on extra funding to drive police reform. We need to ensure that police forces have the right legislative tools to do the job and improve efficiency.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I am sure that he is aware that Durham is the most outstanding police force in the UK for efficiency. Why has that not been rewarded in the settlement? For example, changes to the funding formula this year mean that the force in Durham will have £700,000 less in its budget than it had last year.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s opening comment because I have already accepted an intervention from him, along with many other interventions. He has actually made a good case for exactly why it is important that we do this police funding formula review—to ensure that we get a formula that is not based on the one that has been in place for decades and that many police forces are very unhappy with. We will deliver on our manifesto pledge to deliver a fair funding formula for police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. I appreciate the work that he has done with the police service parliamentary scheme and know that he understands what real policing is really all about.

No wonder that only last week the outgoing head of the Metropolitan police said:

“It’s getting difficult…The bottom line is that there will be less cops. I can’t see any other way…There’s only so much you can cut and make efficiencies and then you’ve got to have less police…I’m not sure that's wise”.

We do not believe it is wise either.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pain has not been distributed equally across the country? In Durham we have lost 25% of our police officers since 2010. Nationally, the average is 12%, although Surrey, I understand, has lost only 1% of its officers.

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly agree. I think the method is shambolic.

I turn to broken promises. Let me give a bit of history. In 2011, David Cameron said:

“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]

Yet the number of police officers fell by almost 21,000 after he became Prime Minister. The total size of the police workforce has fallen by over 46,000 since 2010. Following a successful campaign from the Labour Benches led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), told Parliament at the autumn statement in 2015 that

“now is not the time for further police cuts…There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

Today’s figures show that he has broken that promise to Parliament. In fact, between 2015-16 and, going forward, 2017-18, the total amount of real-terms Government grants for police forces has fallen by 4.4%. The real-terms cuts we have seen in the past two years come on top of real-terms cuts of £2.3 billion—25%—in the preceding five years, as shown by the National Audit Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

It is well known in the House that my right hon. Friend is an extremely intelligent man, but I did not know that he was able to foresee what I was about to say in my very next sentence. Perhaps he has read my speech; I do not know. That is exactly the point I was going to make next, and I thank him for his intervention. A fair settlement would use population, not crime statistics, as the basis of any formula. Another hon. Friend has mentioned sparsity and rurality, which are central to counties such as mine. The population measure is fair and robust, and it can be monitored. It is not influenced by police action. Crime statistics ignore things such as road safety and fear of crime, and they assume the same police response for every situation.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about population, but is he saying that any future formula should not take into account poverty or demand in cities or in areas that have particular problems? If he is suggesting what I think he is suggesting, we will get the situation that we have in local government, where any understanding of poverty that relates to crime is taken out of the formula. That will benefit his constituents at the expense of mine.

[Richard Drax]

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know the make-up of my constituency. There is probably as much poverty hidden in the depths of Dorset as there is in his constituency. All I am saying is that Dorset needs a fairer share of the cake. Larger metropolitan areas can achieve far greater economies of scale in any funding—whether it be in education, the NHS or the police—than we can in Dorset.

We suffer from the fact that the police force has great difficulty in getting around a huge rural mass. People in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) do not often see a police officer. I am concerned by the comment, which I occasionally hear, that if one does not see a police officer, that is a very good thing. If the goodies say that, I am sure that the baddies say, “There are no police officers in rural Dorset. This is a nice soft touch—let’s go for a day out.” That, unfortunately, happens all too frequently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).

As with all areas of public services, the police service has historically been underfunded in rural areas for too long. This has often been based a false perception about the nature of crime and policing in rural areas when compared with cities and other urban areas. The notion that crime in rural areas is little more than the occasional break-in to a garden shed or something of that nature is false. There is a direct comparison between the types and nature of crime in urban and rural areas. On a population pro rata basis, the number of crimes are also distinctly similar.

In addition, there are many specific challenges in policing rural areas, which often require a great police presence and boots on the ground. For example, Cornwall, in which my constituency is located, is an area that, alongside routine residential police matters, has record numbers of tourists, ever more busy roads and many other issues concerning our rural communities, not least the simple fact that sparsely populated rural areas have to bear additional logistic costs. Cornwall is, after all, one of the longest counties with the longest coast—and that is before we consider the challenges of policing the Isles of Scilly. The cost of policing rural sparsely populated areas, where officers must cover large areas and deal with a wide variety of issues—not just crimes—is significant. Rural areas have more than their fair share of remote and winding roads, where statistically there is a disproportionately high number of road traffic accidents. I understand that 61% of road traffic accidents occur on rural roads, which in turn puts an additional burden on the police and other emergency services.

I am pleased to see that deprivation is a key factor when considering police funding, but again there is a myth, often perpetuated by the Labour party, that deprivation exists only in cities. My constituency contains five neighbourhoods in the 10% most deprived in the country.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman must not have read my maiden speech, in which I referred to my constituency as a rural constituency with urban problems. I very much recognise the point he makes.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am pleased to report that he is an exception among Labour Members, who continually present the image that deprivation is an exclusively urban issue.

We have previously been told that the trouble with Cornwall is that we have the wrong type of deprivation to attract police funding. The wrong type of deprivation—not even Network Rail come could up with that excuse. Deprivation exists in our rural and coastal towns and villages. It is often the people who live in the most remote parts of our country who are the most vulnerable. It is time to address the unfairness in funding that has affected our police in rural areas. I am very pleased to confirm that I believe we now have a Policing Minister who both understands the issues facing rural areas and is willing to address them. Not only have I found him willing to take on board the points that I and many of my colleagues have put to him, but I am pleased to report that the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has asked me to congratulate the Minister on the transparent and constructive way that he has dealt with her and other PCCs.

As we are all aware, the job of fighting crime and making our communities safe is not just the responsibility of the police; it is a partnership between all stakeholders. In my constituency, we have a number of examples where that is happening. The Newquay Safe scheme has attracted national recognition. It is a collaboration between local residents, the council, the business community and the police. They have successfully worked together to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in the town, repairing the image of Newquay as a world-class family holiday resort. The town centre of St Austell has suffered from a growing problem of antisocial behaviour in recent years. Here again, stakeholders have come together to address the problem. Only recently, the town centre business improvement district funded extra security to help to reduce antisocial behaviour in the town centre.

It is good that different parts of the community are working together to address these issues, but that cannot be a substitute for frontline police. We should not expect the business community to fund others to do the job of the police in keeping our streets safe. I am therefore pleased to report that, despite the constraints on budgets and the comments from Labour Members, our PCC recently announced that Devon and Cornwall will be gaining additional frontline police officers. The increase in police numbers is greatly welcome and will take the force’s total back up to over 3,000. Another 80 posts are to be created in key support roles, proving once again that it is the Conservative party, on the Government Benches, that is leading the way in delivering value for money for the taxpayer.

We would all, of course, want more money for our police, but I am happy to support the motion today. I am reassured by the Minister’s acceptance that the formula does need to be reviewed going forward. I trust that we can count on him to ensure that in future the unfairness towards rural areas will be addressed and that our police in places like Devon and Cornwall will receive a better deal in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister has come to the House today to tell us that he and the Government are protecting police budgets. That is just not true. The Minister learned many of his political skills at the knee of the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who works on the basis that if you keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it. We have already heard Members from across the Chamber today exploding the myth that the Minister is trying to portray. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made it clear that flat cash is not protection of our budgets, and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made very clear the cuts his force is going to have to make, even with this settlement today. So it is no good the Minister coming here and just repeating that the Government are protecting police budgets.

The people who really know that that is not true are the brave men and women of our police forces up and down the country, who are doing a job to protect our safety. We take them for granted on many occasions, and we do not thank them enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who outlined the dangers they face on a daily basis. So can we stop this kidology that somehow the budgets are being protected?

We also need to take into account the effects of the last six years of cuts on police forces up and down the country. Durham, which covers my constituency of North Durham, has lost 375 officers, 16 PCSOs and 82 police support staff. The National Audit Office recognises that it is one of the forces that has been most affected by the Government cuts to police funding. In 2010, the central Government grant was £100 million; this year, it will be £84 million. The central Government grant accounts for 75% of Durham Constabulary’s funding, with the other 25% made up from the precept. Even with what is being put forward today, the budget for Durham will be cut by another £700,000 in 2017-18. The reality on the ground is that police budgets will be cut. No matter how the Minister tries to spin the figures and to tell us that the Government are committed to protecting police funding, it is clear that they are not. We also have to add to this the compound effect of what has happened over past years. Durham has lost 25% of its frontline police officers over the last six years—Cleveland is the only force that has lost a higher percentage of officers in that period—and that is a direct result of the decisions taken by the Government to cut the police grant.

Much has been said today about the new funding formula, and much has been said by hon. Members about making up the shortfalls resulting from the cuts in central grant through precepts, but that is where areas such as Durham are at a huge disadvantage. Some 55% of properties in Durham’s council tax base are in band A, so a 1% increase in the precept raises approximately £266,000 in additional money for policing in Durham. In areas such as Surrey, where a large proportion of properties fall between bands D and H, a 1% increase will generate large sums. So this funding formula means that Durham’s ability to plug the cuts being forced on it by this Government is very limited. That is also the case in many other areas—my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) raised this issue in her contribution. Regardless of how the Government are going to spin things after today’s debate, Durham Constabulary will this year have to find another £700,000 in cuts to its police budget, and that is in addition to the £16 million that it has lost over the last six years. As many Members have said in this debate, the idea that somehow we can keep cutting without affecting frontline services is unrealistic.

Durham Constabulary has done a tremendous job in spite of the cuts inflicted on it by this Government. It is the most efficient force in the UK; it is an outstanding force. I am sorry that the Minister would not even grudgingly admit that the Labour police and crime commissioner had something to do with that, but it is down to good teamwork between the PCC and Chief Constable Mike Barton, who work closely together to drive through efficiencies and make sure that frontline policing is protected, despite the cuts.

I also want to put on record my thanks to the men and women of Durham Constabulary, because they are the ones on the frontline doing the job day in, day out. We should also pay tribute to the support staff. Frontline police officers are very important as the visible face of the police, but without the administration staff and others behind them, they cannot carry out that function. They have all done a tremendous job in spite of the cuts.

We now have the funding formula promised for 2018-19. If we do not recognise that there are places such as Durham with a high number of band A properties and tackle the precept issue, the ability of Durham and many other areas to raise any substantial amounts of money will be severely affected.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) talked about rural policing issues. Durham is a rural county, and those issues affect some of our former post-industrial communities, and they are on a par with some of the issues facing urban communities. In order to ensure that the distribution of central Government funding is targeted, we must take into account poverty and the need of local communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) raised a very important point that this Government just do not think about. There is no joined-up government here, because if we take money out of one part of the system, it will often have a direct impact on another part, and policing is a great example of that. My hon. Friend also talked about mental health services. If we cut mental health services for people, they still have to go somewhere. They often end up in A&E, and the police then get called to deal with them. That is not good for those individuals, and it is not a good use of police time.

I would go further than that and look at neighbourhood policing. A model used in Durham and other places has worked very well, with joined-up services between local councils and the police. But the cuts being made will affect the ability of those councils to continue that joint-partnership working between the local police and local authorities.

[Dr Wollaston]

I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the police forces on the work they do, particularly for those suffering from mental health problems. Does he agree that the funding formula needs to include not only that, but wider issues of vulnerability, particularly among the elderly population, which is higher in rural areas, especially those such as Devon?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. This comes down to the point about vulnerability made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). For example, the police get involved when a child goes missing, but the increasing rise in dementia and other illnesses among the elderly population is also putting pressure not only on local services but on the police. If someone goes missing from a care home or their own home, the first people to be called are the police.

We need services that are joined up locally; we cannot look at policing in isolation. There was a lot of controversy about police and crime commissioners, and there have been good and bad examples throughout the country, but I was one of those who supported their introduction. Certainly, the joint working that we have seen in Durham between the health services, the police and the local authorities is the way forward. We cannot keep taking money out of one part of the system without realising that it will have an effect on another part.

[Holly Lynch]

In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I mentioned that I had been out with the out-of-hours mental health services, and that police officers had detained someone under the Mental Health Act. However, another person had also been detained and put in a cell. Because of the pressure to keep people detained under the Act out of police cells, that person had to be detained in a police car until a place of safety became available. Without tying all this together and getting the systems in place to support people with mental health difficulties, the police will have to keep picking up those people with vulnerabilities.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I served on the Committee for the Policing and Crime Bill, which introduced the welcome step of trying to ensure that we do not keep people with mental health issues in police cells. She also makes the good point that achieving that aim is reliant on there being places of safety for them. In some areas, that might be a hospital bed. We need to develop places of safety at local level, so that people are not left in police cars or anywhere else. Again, this is about funding. As I was saying a minute ago, we cannot look at policing in isolation, and joined-up strategies can save money. There is an issue about money being saved, but this must also be about the better provision of services.

Durham has an outstanding police force that is doing a first-class job despite the horrendous cuts that have been inflicted on it, but it cannot take any more. I would urge the Minister, if he is listening, to listen to these points about the new funding formula. Forces such as Durham, which have gone through a lot of pain and change, need to be recognised for the efficiencies and steps they have taken. The realities of areas such as mine need to be taken into consideration. This includes the large number of band A properties, which means that local authorities are unable to raise the precept adequately. If that does not happen, more pain will be added, given the cuts that have already taken place. In finishing, I would just like to say this: do not believe what the Minister is saying today. This settlement is a cut in police services to our nation, and people should recognise that.

Policing and Crime Bill (Seventh sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend gets this absolutely right. As a central repository of intelligence and information, Action Fraud can work out which force is best placed to investigate. It may well be that that is the National Crime Agency or an international force. I will give an example. One of my constituents could go to the marketplace in Leek in Staffordshire Moorlands and have a fraud committed on them there. It would be very clear that that had happened in Staffordshire Moorlands and that Staffordshire police should investigate. But if that happens online, the criminal could be based in eastern Europe, or the far east, or anywhere in the UK. Action Fraud can put that information into a central repository and get the links; that means that we have an excellent facility for finding the right force to investigate and for finding the criminal.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham)]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was saying. These things are best looked at nationally—some of the conspiracies are clearly international as well—but does the Minister also agree that one of the problems with Action Fraud is that many people who have contacted it feel let down because of a lack of feedback about what happens in their individual case, or how their individual case may well be helping a bigger fraud?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 46

Child sexual exploitation: assessment of needs for therapeutic support

‘(1) Where police or a local authority have received a disclosure that a child who has been sexually exploited or subject to other forms of child abuse, police or the local authority must make a referral to a named mental health service.

(2) The named mental health service must make necessary arrangements for the child’s treatment or care.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations—

(a) define “named mental health service” for the purpose of this section;

(b) specify a minimum level of “necessary arrangements” for the purpose of the section.”

This new clause enables the Future in Mind report’s recommendation that those young people who have been sexually abused or exploited should receive a comprehensive initial assessment, and referral to appropriate services providing evidence-based interventions according to their need.—(Mr Kevan Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47— Child sexual exploitation: duty to share information—

“The local policing body that maintains a police force shall have a duty to disclose information about children who are victims of sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse to relevant child mental health service commissioners in England and Wales.”

See the explanatory statement for NC46.

[Mr Jones]

The new clauses are probing. This afternoon we have talked about some of the issues surrounding child exploitation. This is about the support that should be given to the victims of child exploitation. The NSPCC and the Children’s Society have been campaigning very hard to ensure that victims of sexual and physical abuse have access, as a matter of course, to therapeutic services. It is true that these things are costly—we talked about that this morning—but in my experience of talking to organisations that deal with such cases, proper, early intervention, especially with young victims, can save money in the long term, by preventing greater trauma many years later.

New clause 46 says that where police or others receive a disclosure that a child has been sexually exploited or subjected to other forms of child abuse, they should refer them to mental health services. It comes back to the question we asked this morning about whether reference to mental health services is a police function. Yes, it is, in terms of investigating the crime that was committed, but how do we then put the holistic bubble around the victim and support them? We need to ensure that the perpetrator of the abuse is taken to court and dealt with, while making sure that the individual gets the emotional and mental health support that they need. Is that naturally a police issue? Directly, no, it is not, but as the Minister said this morning, it is about how we create a link-up between the police service, the health service and other support services.

I accept that some of the services will be provided not by statutory services but by the voluntary sector. A great organisation in my constituency called the Just for Women Centre works with women who have been victims of domestic violence or abuse. It was very interesting listening to the debate this afternoon about victims coming forward. The spike in Durham has come out of the Savile revelations, but it is not about well-known individuals; the issue in that local group is the number of people who have come forward to report family members who abused them over many years.

There has been huge concentration, nationally, on the more high-profile figures, but in local areas a lot of victims who have never come forward before have now done so and are in need of a huge amount of emotional support. This provision refers to children, but without the support given to many of the women at the Just for Women Centre in Stanley in my constituency, early abuse would have led to other problems. Talking to those individuals, we hear that their problems throughout life stem from the fact that they were abused as youngsters. I commend Durham police for their proactive approach to investigating such cases and ensuring that victims get the proper emotional support.

New clause 47 is about information sharing. It says that local policing bodies shall maintain a duty to disclose information about a child who has been a victim of sexual exploitation to the relevant mental health services. I can hear minds crunching among the civil servants in the room, saying that there are obviously problems about sharing information and so on. I accept that, but if we are to ensure that those young people do not fall through the cracks between our statutory services, some method of getting that information to the services that count needs to be put in place.

I accept that ultimately, victims cannot be forced to accept help, but it must be on offer for them. Many of the women whom I have met who have been supported by the Just for Women Centre in my constituency had years of anguish and torment, the root cause of which was not getting help and assistance when they were young. If we can put in place a system that prevents that for future generations, that early intervention could prevent a lifetime of mental health issues, relationship problems and other things. As I said, these are probing amendments to explore how we can put in place practical support for victims of sexual and physical child abuse.

[Lyn Brown]

New clauses 46 and 47 act on a recommendation made in a joint report by NHS England and the Department of Health in 2013 called “Future in mind”, which argued that we need to ensure that those who have been sexually abused and/or exploited receive a comprehensive assessment and referral to the services that they need, including specialist mental health services.

In 2014, the NSPCC produced a summary of the academic literature on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and victims’ later mental health. In each instance, the NSPCC offered a conservative estimate of the known impact of one on the other. Despite that effort not to sensationalise, the numbers are truly shocking. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are twice as likely to suffer from depression as those who are not victims. They are three times as likely to attempt suicide, to self-harm or to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder at some point in their lifetime and twice as likely to become dependent on alcohol, meaning that their physical health as well as their mental health is endangered.

All the evidence shows that the trauma and emotional confusion that follows childhood sexual abuse leaves victims more likely to suffer from poor mental health. We should, as a matter of course, do all we can to prevent that from happening, or at least to ensure that those mental health issues are made easier for victims to manage. That involves high-quality and appropriate mental health treatment and professional emotional counselling. There is evidence, for example, that abuse-specific therapeutic interventions relieve depressive symptoms among victims.

New clause 46 would require police or local authorities to make a referral whenever they receive a disclosure that a child has been the victim of sexual or other abuse. They would have to make a referral even if they do not believe there is enough evidence or grounds to take further legal action. That is important, because the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to use its full array of powers is obviously higher than the level of suspicion needed for our full safeguarding and health measures to be utilised.

The NSPCC has found that delays between children suffering from traumatic events and receiving treatment lead to exacerbated mental health issues and we know that victims of sexual abuse have often had difficulty in being believed by the professionals charged with their care and protection. Duties to refer are not new to our legal system when dealing with safeguarding measures. For example, some employers must refer an individual to disclosure and barring services whenever an allegation of a sexual or abusive nature is made. The provisions in the new clause would not charge local authorities or the police to carry out the task of diagnosis, which they are not trained to do. It would be a precautionary measure that applied to all those about whom they receive a disclosure, not just those they believe to be suffering from a mental or emotional health issue. It is a sensible proposal, in keeping with established safeguarding practice and the assignment of appropriate professional duties.

The proposals are also well thought out. New clause 47 would put a duty on the police to share information with the relevant mental health service commissioner in their area. I believe that that new clause would work with new clause 46 to create a culture of collaboration between law enforcement, health agencies and local government, which is needed if the victims of child sexual exploitation are to be given the care and support that they need.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham for again raising a very important issue. He is absolutely right. We must make sure that vulnerable or traumatised children must never fall through the gaps between services. I would appreciate it if, when we meet, we could discuss the way that that might best be addressed, because I am not convinced that the best way is a mandatory way. For example, some young people who are abused or exploited do not develop mental health problems and I have a nervousness about intervening unnecessarily, which could create unintended harms. We need to make sure that we intervene where we need to and that each child is treated as an individual and has the care that they need; I do not think that it should be mandated.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I take the Minister’s point. We cannot force anyone to have treatment, but the offer of some support for individuals would make a real difference.

[Karen Bradley]

I would really appreciate talking this matter through outside the Committee, and I would like the shadow Minister to attend that meeting as well. There is work being done. The shadow Minister mentioned the “Future in mind” report, which the Department of Health is working on to ensure that an emerging workforce strategy is put in place. Perhaps we can discuss that privately.

The hon. Member for North Durham referred to civil servants getting slightly scared about the idea that personal data should automatically be disclosed to third parties. I appreciate the good intentions, but I do think that that is a dangerous road to be travelling down. We need to have a conversation about how best to manage that.

It is right that we need to make sure that children get support. I have talked about the children I have met who have experienced abuse. They need the right support. At what point do they go into recovery? At what point can they lead a functioning life? It is clear from the work we are doing through the troubled families programme that in the families who have gone through the programme, there are multiple problems—mental health, abuse, domestic abuse and other problems. We need to tackle all of those. I know these are probing amendments and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow us to discuss them at length outside this room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Discussing these issues is worth while. I know there is an onus on things somehow being about cash, especially in a time of austerity, but I have to say that, if properly implemented, the new clause would save money in the long term as well as help individuals. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Suspension of Licences

“(1) Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows—

(2) After section 171 insert—

“171A Suspension of Licences

(1) A licensing authority may suspend a premises licence, or a club premises certificate if the holder of the licence or certificate has failed to pay the non-domestic rates due, from one or more previous financial years, to the licensing authority in respect of the premises for which the licence or certificate relates.

(2) A licensing authority may not suspend a premises licence or a club premises certificate using the powers granted by this section if—

(a) the licensing authority is unable to demonstrate that earlier efforts to secure payment of the debt have been made but have failed, or

(b) either—

(i) the licence holder failed to pay the required amount of non-domestic rates at the time it became due because of an administrative error (whether made by the holder, the authority or anyone else), or

(ii) before or at the time the non-domestic rates became due, the holder notified the authority in writing that the holder disputed liability for, or the amount of, the rates.

(3) If a licensing authority suspends a premises licence or club premises certificate under subsection (1), the authority must give the holder of the licence or certificate notice of the grounds on which the licence or certificate has been revoked and specify the day the suspension takes effect.

(4) The date specified in the notice under subsection (3) must be at least 10 working days after the day the authority gives the notice.

(5) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to any outstanding non-domestic rates which are owed to the licensing authority six months after the commencement of this section.””—(Lyn Brown.)

This new clause would enable a licensing authority to suspend a premises licence where a business has wilfully or persistently failed to pay the business rates due to the licensing authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is my understanding that if a local authority draws up a local policy, it can use cumulative impact to refuse further licences in an area.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are already more than 200 cumulative impact policies in England and Wales and they allow local authorities to control the number or type of licence applications granted in an area where it can be shown that high numbers or densities of licensed premises are having an adverse impact on the licensing objectives. They can also put a levy on such premises. However, the cumulative impact policies currently have no statutory basis and it is unclear whether all local authorities are making best use of the power. That is why we intend to place them on a statutory footing both to maximise their effectiveness and to improve local authorities’ ability to ensure that the right premises for their area are granted licences to sell alcohol and late-night refreshment.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am a bit of an anorak on the Licensing Act 2003 from when we were in power. The Minister makes an important point about putting cumulative impact on a statutory footing. One thing that confuses the public is that while the ability to reduce licences or take action is there—the onus is on the local authority—in many cases they do not use the powers they have got.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities do not necessarily use the powers available to them and this measure will ensure that they understand those powers and use them. I hope that he and the hon. Member for West Ham understand that the change requires proper consultation with those affected. We need to consult the licence trade, the alcohol industry and local authorities. Therefore—I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—we need a little time to undertake such consultations. We will do them as quickly as possible. I cannot promise that they will have been completed in time for Report, but suffice it to say that we support the objectives behind new clause 52 and will seek to bring forward proposals of our own as quickly as possible.

Policing and Crime Bill (Second sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[James Berry]

Q Finally, are there any particular categories of offending in respect of which you are especially concerned about having a restriction on the time you can bail someone for pre-charge?

Sara Thornton: There are certain offence types and sorts of investigations. Any investigations that require the examination of digital forensic material will be problematic. Often, child sexual abuse investigations, where you have masses of third-party material within social services, can be problematic. Indeed, so can financial offences where you have got frauds and you are trying to get information from banks. It would be a mixture of different sorts of offence types, but also investigations that involve certain sorts of evidence.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Q Will you say what powers you actually need and how the system would work if it were an offence to break a bail condition?

Assistant Commissioner Rowley: In the same way that at the moment it is an offence to breach a bail condition post-charge, one could bring the same sort of approach pre-charge. You would not make it life imprisonment; it might be a year for the maximum sentence or something like that. It would not be the most serious offence but it would give some degree of traction.

If you were considering legislation, you could think about whether you put that in place for breaches of bail for all matters or just for serious crime and terrorism. There are ways you could consider it. You could consider how a subject may appeal to a judge against the conditions put on them. There are things you can put around it, but fundamentally it is the ability to say, “If you breach that condition, there is some follow-through from the legal system.”

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q Sara raised the issue of domestic violence. It is terrifying for a woman.

Assistant Commissioner Rowley: Exactly.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q Would you cover that?

Sara Thornton: Absolutely. If it was an offence to breach police bail, for which somebody could be charged, not only would there be a sanction; it would also mean that when you look at their criminal record in future cases, you know that they have a history, on the record, of breaching bail. I am not completely confident whether a police bail has been breached now, but it almost certainly would not get to be a criminal record and I am not sure it would be that transparently available to all other police officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

Q I have one final point. Recent police research revealed that the PCC governance of police forces, as opposed to the old police panel governance, has saved the taxpayer around £2 million every year. If there were similar savings to be made by the extension of PCC governance to the fire service, do you think that both the fire service and the police service could usefully use those savings to prioritise front-line services?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is a difficult question.

Sara Thornton: Collaborations of all kinds deliver all sorts of benefits. They can concentrate expertise, save money, help you to deal with crises and share best practice. In the same way that we already have collaborations with the fire service, which are about shared control rooms and shared estate to save money, if there is more of that, there is more potential to save money.

[The Chair]

I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Not only the brevity, but the accuracy of their responses means that we managed to finish earlier than anticipated. The Committee will be suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the “Get Maisie Home” campaign. We have until 4.30 pm for this session. I ask the two witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.

Dr Chalmers: My name is Dr Julie Chalmers. I am a specialist adviser in mental health law to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I am also a community psychiatrist, and I chair the multi-agency section 136 group at the college.

Sally Burke: I am Sally Burke. I am mum to Maisie, a 14-year-old girl who is struggling with mental health issues. She is also on the autistic spectrum.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q To start with, what are your general views on the provisions in the Bill about amending the Mental Health Act 1983?

Dr Chalmers: First, we welcome the focus on mental health crisis, following on from the excellent work that has been done by the concordat. The college is very much behind the principles that are driving the changes to legislation. Having said that, there are some very sensible changes. For example, there is the issue regarding clarification of a public place. My colleagues in the British Transport police and the healthcare workers who work alongside them have struggled with that issue. That is a very important change, because we know that the railway line is an important issue with suicide.

However, we have to step back and see section 136 in a much wider context of crisis care. I would be concerned that the legislation cart is coming before the horse. There have been significant changes in the past two years. Certainly, the number of people who are going to a health-based place of safety has increased. As you may know, the figures are variable, but it looks like about 80% of people, if not more, now go to these places. So there have been considerable improvements within the health services in their response to crisis.

We cannot do our job if we do not have the resources. Changes to the law could put pressure on the crisis services at a number of points, and I can expand on this if the Committee wishes. For example, there is the suggestion of changing the length of time to 24 hours. In principle that is an excellent idea. We want to reduce the time that people are subject to detention, particularly when that has been prompted by someone who is not a mental health professional. I think that 24 hours is a realistic timeframe in which to do that if the resources are in place. Generally, the areas that keep figures will tend to be the good areas. However, it is possible to meet people’s needs within a relatively short period of time, and do the assessment within several hours of presentation. That is perhaps not within the three hours that the college would set as the gold standard, but it is certainly within that longer period. It does become a problem if someone is intoxicated, or if they come in overnight when resources are less available and that gets passed on to the daytime services. There may be a knock-on effect.

The main problem that I see with the laudable aim of reducing the time for which people are subject to detention is when we come to the very small group of people who are subject to section 136 who need to be detained in hospital. As you have probably heard, approximately 20% of people need to come into hospital, and some of them will need to be detained under the Mental Health Act. If we cannot identify a bed for a person to go to, we might very quickly run up against this 24-hour time period. Then we—the AMHP, the approved mental health professional—are left in the most appalling situation. It is the job of the AMHP to make the recommendation for admission to hospital based on two medical recommendations. We have to say which hospital and which bed that person is going to. If we cannot identify that, then after 24 hours we will be in a position of acting unlawfully, because we have no way of detaining the person. I note that the Bill as it is currently written suggests that someone could be detained on clinical grounds. There is a lack of clarity around on what grounds we could extend.

I want to flag up to you the very important point that we may be in a situation where we cannot find a bed. That is not just me shroud-waving. The Committee will be aware that the Lord Crisp commission has highlighted the appalling situation where we are struggling to find beds. On occasions, we have to send people away, usually to independent hospitals. I will say a word about the difficulties there. Something like 500 people in a month have to travel more than 50 km to find a bed.

It sounds easy, “Let’s just find a bed in an independent hospital. Why wouldn’t they want to take somebody?” My team is in this position several times a month, where we will phone around several hospitals looking for a bed. Perhaps this sounds ungenerous, but sometimes it feels that if you have a choice you can cherry-pick the kind of patients you want to take. Often we think we are offered a bed, then we send the details and it is turned down. I am really concerned. Although I welcome it in principle, I just want to flag up the important resource issues that we might come up against with the 24-hour period.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q Like you, I welcome the broad provision that has been put in place but I have this concern. What will happen is that people will not be taken to a police cell—which is what we are trying to avoid—but will likely be kept at home because that is now deemed as a place of safety.

Without statistics being published, we will see the number of people being referred to police stations going down, but we will not know what has happened to them. Do you think there should be in the Bill an onus on a local force to keep statistics of what happens to people under sections 135 and 136? Otherwise, we could get a situation whereby the problem just gets masked rather than solved.

Dr Chalmers: Your point is very well made. As early as 2011, the inter-agency group made a plea for good statistics. If you do not know what is happening we cannot track it.

If I could just take you back. I think we need to distinguish section 135 from section 136. Section 136 will never occur in a person’s home. What I think the Bill seeks to address is the lack of clarity about whether you could undertake the assessment in the patient’s home when you had entered with a warrant. It is the police who will administer, if you like, the warrant. They will act on the warrant accompanied by the AMHP and a doctor.

Up to now it has been unclear whether you could stay in that person’s home to undertake the assessment, or whether the Mental Health Act as written required you to remove a person to a place of safety. I have done many assessments in a person’s home, and I think that is probably better than removing them, particularly if it is not clear that you will actually detain somebody in hospital. It is important to clarify that.

Your point about data is particularly pertinent to section 135, where those are not collected nationally. Of course, there are two 135 warrants. There is the one to enter a person’s home to remove to a place of safety, and one to return them to hospital. We do need those data.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q Can I clarify the position? The Bill would require a police officer to consult a mental health professional or nurse before removing someone from a place of safety, where it is “practicable to do so”. What is your view on that wording?

Dr Chalmers: My personal view is that that has slipped in. As far as I am aware, that was not consulted on. I do not necessarily know what the college position would be, other than to say it is always a good thing to talk. I would say that as a psychiatrist.

I just wonder whether that needs to be in legislation rather than in regulations or in the code of practice, because it is straying into an area of telling people what to do using the law, which I am not sure is particularly helpful. What we do know, based on evidence from the street triage projects, is that where people work together and there are conversations between police and healthcare professionals in some areas, it has led to significant reductions. If you include this provision, we are behind. The services are very patchy and variable. In some places it would work very well because police would have immediate access to somebody with authority to give advice. In other places, they would be foundering. Without bringing the resources alongside the law, there is the risk of setting people up to fail. Allowing things to develop in localities can find the best way of working, because there might be different pathways.

I have sidetracked your question, because I wonder whether we need to scrutinise whether that is a wise thing to have in statute rather than in regulation or within the code of practice.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Q May I ask one last question on advocacy? Clearly, some individuals have family members or others to explain the law or situation to them. In many of these cases, individuals have no one. What is your view about making it a requirement for people to have access to advocates?

Dr Chalmers: It would be a pragmatic response. There are pragmatic responses and principled responses. It is essential that people have good information explaining in easy, accessible language what is happening to them and their rights at that point. Nursing staff in section 136 suites are well placed to do that. Again, I would imagine that that is patchy, but it is something that should be built into the specifications and reviewed.

The pragmatic answer is that for people on longer-term sections, for whom there is a statutory right to advocacy, the responses are patchy, so we have not got it right for the people who already have a statutory right to advocacy. I think stretching it to 3 o’clock in the morning is going to be very difficult.

[Jake Berry]

Q If I may address Sally: thank you for coming here today and for providing very detailed information about the journey you have been on with Maisie in advance of our meeting, for which we are all extremely grateful. As someone who has experienced the problems faced by yourself and Maisie at first hand, can you tell us a little about those experiences and what further you think we can do in the Bill to try to help parents who find themselves in the same situation?

Sally Burke: I have to state that of all the agencies we have worked with in crises, the police have gone the furthest in improving how they are with Maisie and understanding her. I welcome the Bill for not putting children in a cell as a place of safety. Maisie has not been in that position—just the thought of it—I did not realise at the time the damaging effect it would have had on her.

As Maisie’s parent my main concern was to keep her safe, but I was in too much of a state seeing my child doing the things that she was doing to make a long-term decision. With hindsight, I was able to reflect on what the police need to do in that crisis. I am now more hardened to it, so if Maisie wraps something around her neck, I can say, “Take that off”. Before, I would be going to pieces asking, “Oh, what do I need to do? I need to find a pair of scissors, but everything is locked away in a safe, so find the keys”. It is an awful predicament to be in, but you do get hardened to it, as you know, and a lot of police officers are hardened to those scenarios.

You need to have officers who can talk about mental health to parents. The approach of a lot of the front-line officers who turn up depends on their view on mental health. An older generation chap would think, “It’s attention-seeking, this. What do we do with this girl?” But younger people who we have had out seem to be more sympathetic and have more of an empathy on mental health and can deal with Maisie on a much friendlier, teenage level, which brings her down. If you have somebody who has quite a negative view on mental health thinking that she is having a behaviour fit and wants some attention, trying to bring her down in that scenario is not as effective.

It is also important to help a parent make a decision about the best way forward and the best place to go for safety that will have the best impact on that child in the long run. That is really important. My confidence has grown massively over the past two years since we first went into crisis. The first time I went into crisis with Maisie, if somebody had told me they were taking her to the moon right now to keep her safe, I would have said yes, because it was so horrible. You just cannot comprehend how you feel, as a parent. So I think it is about educating the officers who go out to these calls.

I have helped our local police force. I have been to conferences there and have heard the mental health cop talk to the officers and say, “60% to 70% of our time is spent on mental health conditions, yet we get hardly any training; 6% to 7% of our time is on criminal offences, or crimes, and how much training do you get for those activities?” When you see it in the balance, I think that would really help families and youngsters in mental health crisis.

Also, if you could sew into that, with your magic wand, some training on autism and learning difficulties, because that comes across as a bit of a grey area. Some officers just do not know what autism is and how to treat a child with autism. When Maisie is in crisis, she does not like to be touched, but an officer will come up to her and say, “Come on, Maisie, it’s okay” and she will freak out because she does not want to be touched. So there needs to be some education around how best to approach a child in that crisis scenario.

Policing and Crime Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I broadly welcome what the Home Secretary is outlining in terms of the IPCC, but one complaint I have from constituents is about the time the IPCC takes to deal with some very simple cases. Constituents would rather know that there was no case to answer than see things being dragged out. Are there any proposals to have different tracks for more complex cases and simple cases?

[Mrs May]

Yes. It is important that all cases are dealt with in as timely a fashion as possible. Beefing up the ability of local complaints procedures to deal with what we might see as simpler local complaints may very well enable people to get a better response from that local complaints process, rather than feeling that things then have to be put through to the IPCC, which will have a focus on serious and sensitive cases. Also, the restructuring will help to smooth the process by which cases are looked at by what will be the OPC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend, who has a fine record of campaigning on these issues, is right to raise that point. The organisations he mentions meet Ministers regularly through the crisis care concordat, but I am happy to look at their concerns. I hope that the Bill will go some way to dealing with some of the continuing concerns, notwithstanding the work we have done over the past few years in improving the police response to people who are at a point of mental health crisis.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome some of the mental health changes being outlined by the Home Secretary, but there is an omission in relation to advocacy. Those individuals detained under sections 135 and 136 are not automatically allowed to have advocates. Will she look at that, because I think it would certainly strengthen some of the Bill’s reforms?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Obviously, what we are trying to do through the Bill, the street triage pilots and the extra mental health provision in various parts of the country is to reduce the need for advocacy by reducing the amount of time people can spend in a police cell. Indeed, the Bill also reduces the maximum period of detention for the purposes of mental health assessment under sections 135 or 136 from 72 hours to 24 hours, with the possibility of an extension to 36 hours if a medical practitioner decides that it is clinically necessary. In parallel with those legislative changes, the Department of Health is making up to £15 million available in the coming year to improve the provision of health-based places of safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Absolutely. People would expect that terror suspects would be placed on watch lists immediately —the minute they are placed on police bail—but it appears that that did not happen in this case.

The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in January that he would look carefully at stronger police bail powers, but the Bill does not deliver them and nor does it close the loophole. The basic problem is that police bail conditions are not enforceable. As such, the Bill misses a major opportunity, so we will press the Government hard in Committee to correct the situation. We need a tougher and targeted police bail regime that, when dealing with more serious offences, can impose enforceable sanctions, such as the confiscation of passports and travel documents in terrorism-related cases.

The proposed reforms on mental health are timely and much needed. Given the levels of stress and insecurity inherent in 21st-century living, mental health will be one of the greatest—if not the greatest—health challenges of this century, so it is essential that the police and the criminal justice system develop basic standards to deal with it. We therefore strongly welcome moves to ban the use of police cells for children in crisis and to introduce limits on their use for adults, and we also support limiting the time for which people can be held. Our concern is not with the measures themselves, but whether they can be delivered in practice.

As shadow Health Secretary, I revealed in the previous Parliament how the Government had not honoured their commitment to parity between physical and mental health, but instead cut mental health more deeply than other parts of the NHS. As a consequence, mental health services in many parts of the country are today in crisis. Only last week, Richard Barber, a councillor from Golborne in my constituency, contacted me to say that he had worked with professionals for two days to help to find a tier 4 bed for a highly vulnerable young man who was close to suicide. Shockingly, no beds were available anywhere in the country. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed out, banning the use of cells, as welcome as that is, does not solve the problem of why those cells are used in the first place. Similarly, reducing the time limit for assessment does not itself guarantee enough trained professionals to deliver the new standard.

The combination of the changes could put professionals in a difficult position. Assessments to detain under the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot be completed until a bed has been identified, so the Bill could put professionals in the invidious position of having to choose between breaking the law, by going over the 24-hour period if a bed cannot be identified, and not breaking the law but releasing someone who should be detained. It is therefore essential that, alongside the Bill, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary issue new instructions to health service commissioners to open sufficient beds and train sufficient professionals to deliver these welcome new commitments.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one omission is that this information is not kept nationally? If we are to monitor whether what is proposed is being put into practice, we will need that information, but at the moment it is not available. Without it, we will never determine whether we are meeting the targets.

[Andy Burnham]

That is the problem. Professionals searching for a bed are in a desperate position because of the lack of information. The risk is that if the new requirements come into law without a plan to commission the extra beds and professionals needed, that could have perverse consequences by putting professionals in a difficult position. I hope that that does not happen, but I say to the Home Secretary that much more than £15 million will be needed to create adequate bed capacity to deal with the problem.

Finally, I come to the proposals that give us the greatest concern, the first of which is for a major expansion in the number of volunteers. The Home Secretary was right to praise the role of specials, but we argue that volunteers should add value, rather than replace core police provision. As we have revealed, police forces in England are facing a decade of real-terms cuts. We lost 18,000 officers in the last Parliament, and many more are set to go in this one. That is the context in which the House must consider the proposal in the Bill to extend the use of volunteers.

The House should not endorse the principle that volunteers can safely backfill the gaps left by cuts to policing. As has been pointed out, the Bill in effect gives police volunteers the ability to use CS gas and PAVA spray, but most people would argue that those functions should be restricted to full-time officers. We are not opposed to the greater use of volunteers, but they should come on top of a protected core of police officers to add value, rather than being replacements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is genuinely trying to be constructive and to find a way forward, but I just do not think that police stations are the right place to take ill people. It might be unavoidable in some circumstances, but we need to minimise those circumstances. All too often a police cell is used as a place of safety, but that is not right. However, I entirely accept the spirit in which he made his intervention.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that someone having a heart attack is in crisis and in a life-threatening situation, and that, likewise, someone who is in severe mental torture is experiencing a crisis and in a potentially life-threatening situation as well? Why does he think the two should be treated differently?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend—for that is what I call him—knows that I do not think that the two should be treated differently, which is why he and I have joined forces on so many occasions in the past and will do so in the future to make sure that the reality changes. There is slow progress, but it is progress none the less. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis is helping us to make progress, but I do not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

As well as a lack of acute beds, the choice of health-based places of safety for an assessment in many places is incredibly limited. I will now draw on the excellent and concise briefing provided by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. According to the Care Quality Commission map, there are no health-based places of safety for under-16-year-olds in many local authority areas, including Devon, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Bristol or Bath. That is not good and it is not sustainable.

It is not all doom and gloom. There is clear evidence that, where local areas have emphasised long-term preventive measures and put in place crisis outreach and triage teams, they have already improved their services, so they would easily be able to provide the care set out in the Bill. We have heard from the Home Secretary —it is worth repeating—that the crisis care concordat has been a great driver. She also knows that most Department of Health-funded schemes have managed to reduce significantly the number of people being detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. For example, in areas where street triage is operating—this is not in the whole force area, but specific parts of a force’s area—pilots have delivered massive reductions in the use of section 136. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis having an Adjournment debate on that very subject a year ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister, and I say to him that he should carry on cherry-picking if that results in changes that find favour with both sides of the House.

On mental health, the Bill will ban the use of police cells as places of safety for under-18s, and the Committee has never believed that they are the right place for such people. I acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has also campaigned on these issues over a number of years. He is one of those who have always said that people with such illnesses should be in police cells only in exceptional cases. That applies, of course, to children, but also to adults.

The Committee likes the idea of police officers consulting members of the medical profession before removing a person to a place of safety, and we think it is right that there should be a maximum period of detention.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right that the intention is, quite rightly, not to have under-18s in police cells, but to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and others, that will happen whether we like it or not, unfortunately, if the beds are not available locally.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why these things have to be done in partnership with the local health authority and the local authority. If there is no provision, police officers are left in the position of having to make decisions about people with mental illnesses, and we do not want them to be in that position, because they are not qualified to make such decisions. The Police Federation, too, needs to be thanked for its work on this issue, because it was the first to point out that many people in custody suites should not be there, because of their mental health conditions, and it would prefer them to be in another place. My hon. Friend is therefore right: these issues are all part of providing even better support for such people.

The Committee welcomes what has been said about police bail, which of course reflects one of our recommendations. We published our report on the issue on 20 March 2015. We were moved to do so because of the evidence given to us by a number of individuals, and particularly by Paul Gambaccini, who made the powerful point that the continuous extension of bail caused individuals huge distress.

Paul Gambaccini also said, and we agreed with him, although this is not part of the Bill, that when the police finish an investigation and find that there is no evidence, they should say not that people are not being prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence, but simply that they could not proceed because there was no evidence, which was the situation we found in the Paul Gambaccini case. It is important that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

That is helpful. I must say that I was not confusing the two of them, but I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to provide clarification.

I think we are clear that, at the moment, there is no such sanction for a finding of misconduct against an officer who has already retired. That is surely still a gap because it seems palpably absurd to suggest that some sort of blacklist would be a sufficient deterrent or, if that is not what the sanction is for, to give a sense of confidence and justice. I really hope that the Government will think again about this issue. They should also consider whether community work could be mandated in certain appropriate circumstances in certain fields for officers who have subsequently been found guilty of misconduct. I suggest that what is being proposed will simply not be enough to meet the real need for people to have greater confidence that retired officers can be sanctioned.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech and I understand his frustration, but does he not realise that it would be very difficult to take someone’s pension off them? For someone who has retired and been paid a pension for 10 years, it would be difficult to take their future pension payments off them, but how does he envisage recouping the money that they had received for the previous 10 years? I understand his frustration, but that might be very difficult to do in practice.

[John Woodcock]

I understand that there are clearly practical difficulties. At the moment, there would not be such a 10-year situation, because the Government suggest that it would happen within one year. We must, however, balance any logistical difficulties with the fact that it would be the exception rather than the norm. To take the example of the appalling conduct of certain senior officers at Hillsborough, the idea that they could escape with no sanction whatsoever is galling. We have a chance to change the system and to tighten it up further than by the welcome steps that the Government have already set out, and I really hope we can do so.

Labour Members who have been pushing for all of this should give credit to the Government because, at least in this respect, they want to make genuine progress. For all the valid criticisms that we make of many aspects of her role, the Home Secretary genuinely wants to increase the level of accountability and transparency in any area of public service that, for too many years—through generations—has avoided the kind of scrutiny given to other areas of the public sector. However, I think we can do significantly better than the proposals currently on the table, and I hope the Government will now consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I broadly welcome this Bill, and I will touch first on its proposals for mental health services and then on some broader issues, including those raised by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). Credit must go to the Government for addressing police interaction with those who suffer from mental health conditions. Is this issue the fault of the police? No, it is not. In many cases, they are picking up the failure of the rest of society, but they have specific powers that the Bill proposes to change with regard to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Sections 135 and 136 are unique because they give the police powers to remove the liberty of somebody who has not committed an offence or been suspected of doing so. Section 135 is used if someone is suspected of a mental disorder that could lead to them becoming a danger to themselves, not being kept under control, or being unable to care for themselves. A magistrate can authorise a warrant for police officers, with a doctor or another mental health care professional, to carry out an assessment and enter someone’s property, and to evaluate them and section them for up to 72 hours.

Section 136 refers to people in a public place and states that a person who is

“suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control”

can be taken to a “place of safety” if it is felt that they or others need to be protected. There are clear reasons for such provisions, but I think they have been made worse by the non-joined up approach to dealing with people who have mental health issues. Is that the fault of the police? No, it is not. The steps taken in the Bill will help, but will they solve the problems? No they will not, because until we hard-wire mental wellbeing and mental health into public policy, these problems will continue to exist.

Under the 1983 Act, a “place of safety” includes a hospital, a police station, an independent hospital, a care home, or any other suitable place. Clauses 59(2) and 60 move away from the practice of taking people to police stations. For example, clause 59 will allow someone to be kept at home, although I understand from talking to mental health professionals that that already happens in some cases, which I welcome. Not using the default position of taking someone to a police cell must be welcomed. Clause 60 states that a suitable place of safety could be someone’s house or flat, or another place that a responsible management deems suitable. I have some problems with that because it puts the onus on the police to decide what is a safe place, and I do not think that is fair on the police officers in attendance.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, for giving way. Not only does the police officer have to consider what is a safe place, they probably also have to decide how ill the person is with whom they have come into contact. That must be very difficult at times.

[Mr Jones]

I agree, and as has been mentioned, there is good practice in co-locating police officers and other emergency services with mental health professionals.

My other problem is with who takes such a decision. Clearly, if someone is in crisis and faced with a choice of being taken to a police cell or being allowed to stay at home, most people will stay at home even if that is not the safest place for them. Likewise, their relatives or carers may feel that they have no choice but to take the default position of keeping somebody at home. Perhaps when the Bill goes to Committee we should examine exactly how the measure would work in practice, because it could also lead to the problem being masked. Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), I think that we need a place of safety. That does not necessarily have to be a bed—I will come to that issue in a minute—but we need places where people can be taken and properly assessed. These statistics may suddenly disappear, and people might not be placed in that position—the local health commissioners might suddenly say that we do not need a place of safety, but that is not currently the case. We need clarification on what is deemed a place of safety.

Clause 59(5) states that the police must consult a health professional before using section 136 of the 1983 Act. It requires a police officer, where practicable, to consult a doctor, nurse, approved medical professional or another person as specified in the regulations—we have not seen those yet—before using their section powers. Again, I have some problem with that provision. I can see it working in practice in a situation such as those outlined where there is good triaging work, but it is a big call on a police officer in a difficult situation when somebody is in crisis—especially if they are threatening to take their own life—if practical steps have to been taken to consult a mental health professional. The thrust of the provision is right, but I am not sure how it would work in practice without a clear indication that local police forces have ready access to mental health professionals. I accept, however, that in some places great work is being done on that with joint working.

Clause 60 refers to the place of safety and police cells. Should a police cell be a place of safety for somebody with a mental health issue? It certainly should not. Subsection (6) prohibits the use of cells for those under 18, and I completely agree with that. The only problem is that if there are alternatives to the police cell, what will be the default position? People say that more beds are needed, and in some areas that is a problem. In other areas, however, we need places of safety to take people to. We cannot separate the crisis that faces housing in London, for example, and mental health issues. If we have proper supported housing and other projects for people to go to, that is the alternative. A bed is not always the answer to these problems. The Crisp report demonstrated that 500 people had to travel 50 km to access a mental health bed. However, because such statistics are not kept nationally, how will we know whether the targets are being met? At the moment, statistics are kept sporadically, and perhaps in Committee we should insert some provision for them to be kept nationally.

The thrust of the Bill is right, and clause 60 provides regulatory powers to the Secretary of State on the use of police cells as a place of safety for those aged 18 or over. The regulations will set out the circumstances in which a police cell may be appropriate for someone waiting for an assessment. I do not question for one minute the Government’s direction of travel in not wanting to place people with mental health issues in police cells, but some examination of what those regulations would mean is important. Clearly, if beds or places of safety are not available locally, people will wait a long time. I have spoken to police officers in my area and a police cell is the last place they want such people to be in.

Measures to reduce the maximum detention time from 72 hours to 24 hours are welcome. However, I would even question the 24-hour limit, which I think is linked to Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regulations. These people are not criminals, so why do we have to use the same time limit? Guidance for commissioners from the Royal College of Psychiatrists on section 136 says an assessment should be made within three hours. In Committee, we should try to reduce the time limit down to a maximum of three hours. I am not criticising civil servants for drafting the provisions thinking they would fit in with the PACE regulations, but the inference of criminality stigmatises people who are clearly not criminals.

The chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised the issue of when the 24-hour period starts. Does it start from when the person is detained in a police van or police car, or does it start when they arrive at the place of safety? This could make a big difference if people are being transported long distances to a place of safety. These issues need to be considered.

The issue of health service advocacy is completely missing in the Bill and needs to be addressed. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, there is provision for independent advocates for people with mental health issues. There are some exceptions, however, one of which happens to be the place of safety under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. People need advocacy and I would like some provision in the Bill to allow access to it. People in crisis will not be in a position to argue for their rights or to ensure they make the right decisions. The idea that advocacy is an exception rather than mandatory under the Act again puts pressure on statutory services to take it seriously.

I do not want to be churlish. I recognise that the Government are trying to move forward and I welcome what is being proposed, but the practical implications perhaps need to be considered in Committee. Alongside that consideration, we need a debate about what is a place of safety. In some cases it will be a bed, but the hon. Member for Broxbourne has other examples of places of safety run by charities and others. Unless the provisions in the Bill are implemented alongside changes to the health service and the voluntary sector, the issue, which is perceived to be a problem, will be placed unfairly back on to the police. We need to ensure the two are linked up. I hear what the Government say about £15 million being made available, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with the problems we face. We need to ensure that local commissioners work with the emergency services and others when commissioning local services. This is not just about beds. I am coming around to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said as perhaps more appropriate.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about short-term crisis houses, which tend to be run by the third sector. They are community based and people can go to them for between three and five days at that moment of crisis to be sorted out before they go back home or back into the community to stay with friends or relatives.

[Mr Jones]

Yes. It is time to consider that proposal irrespective of whether such houses are provided by the voluntary sector or the statutory sector. A network of that type of provision across the country would get away from the use of police cells. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they could be commissioned at a local level, and third sector development could provide very good value for money. I welcome the proposed changes, but they need to be amended in Committee.

I broadly welcome the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is right to say that we cannot consider it in isolation away from the funding of our police forces or of our fire and rescue services. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave the impression that this is all about driving through efficiency locally, forgetting that more than £2 billion has been taken out of policing by her Government in the past six years. In addition, money has been taken out of local fire and rescue services. Before she claims that I am arguing for inefficiency, I stand proud to be the Member of Parliament for the most efficient police force in the UK—Durham. However, efficiency has been achieved at a cost. The central Government grant has been cut and 350 officers have had to go. She talks about precepts and making local government accountable. That is fine, but the system needs to change. An increase in the precept in Durham, on both the fire service and the police, will not fill the gap created by central Government cuts. In a perverse way, the Government seem to be moving money away from more deprived areas to the more affluent areas of the south.

On the relationship between the fire services and the police, I am not opposed to efficiencies relating to the back office or anything else, but the hon. Lady did say she did not want the police fighting fires and firefighters catching criminals. I agree. We need to be clear that there will be no merging of the frontline. I will support anything that can make the service better for people and more efficient. The firefighters and police officers that I know want that, too.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the sentiment the hon. Gentleman expresses, but does he agree that there are circumstances in which police officers and firefighters may want to stray over the line into each other’s areas of responsibility? There was a famous case not very long ago where police officers stood back and watched somebody floundering in a pond almost drowning, because it was not their job and they did not feel trained enough to go in and save that person. They had to wait for the fire service to arrive. Surely there are circumstances where having complementary skills can be beneficial to the safety of the public.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman does the police and firefighters a disservice by giving an anecdotal example. There are many occasions when serving police officers have rescued people from fires.

[Kit Malthouse]

That is the point I am making.

[Mr Jones]

Well, yes, but that is not about blurring their roles. I do not think that that is what the public want. They want their police officers to protect them and their streets, and they want their firefighters to respond to house fires and other types of emergencies—road traffic accidents and so on. The public want specialist skills and I would be totally opposed to any blurring of the lines.

There are some positive measures in the Bill that are a step forward. I caution my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that, while we need to table many amendments, voting against the Bill on Report would not be understood by the public. It would give the impression that we did not care about the things in the Bill that should be welcomed. Instead, we should be highlighting the things that are ideologically driven.

[Andy Burnham]

Just to clarify, I was talking not about voting against the Bill per se—as I said, it is a good Bill, and we like many of the measures in it—but about voting on Report against the proposals on fire, police bail, which, if not strong enough, we will want to strengthen, and police accountability, where we believe that retirement should not free police officers from having to facing up to past wrongdoing.

[Mr Jones]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the misunderstanding. I thought he told the House he would oppose the Bill on Report, which I would not, but I look forward to his amendments because there are clear ways that the Bill could be improved and strengthened, as he said.

In closing, I broadly welcome the Bill. I hope that in Committee we can address the issues around mental health so that the Bill can do what the Government want it to do, which is to improve the situation. I suggest that they work with the charities sector and others who have raised some of the concerns that I have mentioned tonight. I hope that we can get to where the Government want to go and avoid the situation of people with a mental illness ending up in police cells. It could also take the burden from front-line police officers, who, although they try hard, are not qualified to deal with such situations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a police cell should not be a place of safety for a child with mental health problems—we are very clear about that. That is one issue that has emerged from the review we have undertaken, with the Department of Health, of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act, and I am clear that in future we should not see children being held in a police cell as a place of safety when they have mental health problems.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Some 1,600 acute beds in mental health facilities have been lost on this Government’s watch. What assessment has the Home Secretary made at local level about beds being available for people who actually need them? Does she really think it is acceptable that in some cases people are having to travel up to 200 miles to access a crisis bed? Is that not why people are ending up in police cells, rather than in mental health crisis beds where they should be?

[Mrs May]

Under this Government we are seeing a significant change in the way in which people with mental health problems are being dealt with by both the police and the NHS: it is this Government who have reviewed sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act; it is this Government who have introduced the street triage pilots, whereby more and more people are being taken to proper places of safety in health care settings rather than being put in police cells; and it is this Government who have put mental health clearly on the agenda in relation to health matters—unlike the Labour Government.

Criminal Law

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have explained that the statutory instrument transposes those measures that require legislation. I repeat—I am happy to speak about this again later—that we are not required to transpose the European arrest warrant into UK legislation because it is already in UK legislation, in the Extradition Act 2003.

We had an opportunity to exercise the opt-out, and we did so. We have brought back more than 100 powers from Brussels.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will make some progress, because the time for the debate is now more limited and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

As the Prime Minister says, we have overseen the biggest return of powers since this country joined the EU, but we have always been clear that we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures that give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help in the fight against crime. This Government and this party will never put politics before the protection of the British public and that is why we are seeking to remain part of a package of 35 measures that help us to tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I fear that we are getting into repetition. I want to talk about the important work of our Border Force. I was at Heathrow airport last week.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

To help the hon. Lady, may I ask her whether one of the consequences of the Bill would be that we have to build many jails in this country to house the armies of illegal immigrants with whom the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggests there is a problem?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is clearly a matter for the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Department, so I do not wish to comment on the number of prisons that may be needed. We should pay tribute to our Border Force teams—

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Figures were given in briefings to newspapers of about £50 million of additional funding to the security services and the police as a result of the switch from control orders to TPIMs, but it would be helpful to have that figure confirmed by the Government. In addition, however, we do not know whether extra resources are being provided for the ending of TPIMs. That clearly creates additional pressures on the police and security services.

This country has always to be vigilant against terrorism, and we should thank the police and our security and intelligence services, which do a difficult job incredibly well, often behind the scenes and unnoticed. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the threat of a terror attack directly by al-Qaeda has decreased since the mid-2000s, but the threat from its affiliates and its power to motivate other extremists and provide training and planning support all remain. Over this Parliament, we have seen attempted bomb plots in the west midlands, plans to attack a Territorial Army base and target Wootton Bassett, and of course the dreadful murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last summer.

UK nationals attempting to travel overseas to fight and train are also potential threats to the UK, both to our interests and citizens abroad and to us here when they return home. The independent reviewer has warned that the Syrian conflict might begin to rival the traditional threat from al-Qaeda core and regions north of Pakistan. We need to be vigilant against these threats and ensure that the British people are protected, and to ensure that the terrorists do not divide us or undermine our democratic values. The laws we pass against terrorism need always to be proportionate and fair.

That is why, like control orders before them, TPIMs are exceptional powers and should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but there are difficult cases: where there is substantial evidence that someone poses a terror risk, but where convictions cannot be achieved—for example, if they depend on secret intelligence that cannot be used in court. Given the risk of harm and potential loss of life from terror attacks, Parliament and our courts have long supported preventive measures based on a clear legal procedure, with safeguards to reduce the risk to the public.

Three years ago, however, the Home Secretary decided to weaken those terror powers by replacing control orders with TPIMs, putting a two-year limit on each one and removing relocation and other restrictions from them. She said there would be a greater focus on prosecution and imprisonment.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the narrative being put out by the Conservative part of the coalition is that the legislative change that brought in TPIMs was a result of their coalition partners, the Liberals? Was not the start of this, however, in the Conservative party’s 2010 manifesto?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I want to come to that. The Home Secretary ducks the issue if she simply blames the Liberal Democrats for this change in legislation, because she introduced it and Conservative MPs voted for, supported and defended it at every stage of its passage through the House, even when we raised questions and concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Since 11 September 2001 successive Governments have grappled with the problem of how to deal with terrorist suspects who can neither be prosecuted nor deported. The last Government first introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in November 2001. This legislation effectively introduced detention without trial for foreign terrorist suspects who could be held pending deportation even when that deportation was unlikely ever to happen. In 2004 the Law Lords struck down those powers.

We later had the extraordinary spectacle of the attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention to 90 days, which was rightly defeated by Parliament, and in 2005 the last Government introduced control orders, but control orders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has said, were steadily eroded by the courts. Three control orders were quashed because the courts said they were wrong in principle, two control orders were revoked because the courts directed that they were no longer necessary, and three control orders were revoked because the previous Government felt they were unable to make the disclosures ordered by the court. All those individuals were then freed from their controls.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does what the right hon. Lady has just described not show that the judicial oversight of control orders was actually working?

[Mrs May]

I have to say that that is an ingenious argument to make in support of the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers, but what it shows is that the courts were giving a very clear message about aspects of control orders. What we needed was a regime that was legally viable and would command the confidence of the police and security services, and TPIMs have been consistently endorsed by the courts, two successive independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation, the police and the Security Service. They provide some of the strongest restrictions available in the democratic world and some of the strongest possible protections that our courts will allow. We now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terrorist suspects whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I was about to answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. When I refer to the seven absconds that took place under control orders, the answer that I always get from Opposition Members is about this issue of relocation. What neither he in his intervention, nor the right hon. Lady in her speech tell us is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases, including those of two individuals who were subsequently placed on TPIMs. The right hon. Lady also does not say that several control order subjects breached their control orders even while they were relocated, so the idea that relocation would prevent orders being breached is simply not correct. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether the removal of the option for relocation would have had any bearing on the case of Ibrahim Magag, in particular, he answered:

“we do not think so”.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What about the point made by David Anderson in his latest review? He says:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”

to terrorism.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of this matter to the House. As I said, the police and Security Service have been putting plans in place for those individuals who will come off TPIMs, and they are similar to the plans they use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.

We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.

In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The first priority of any Government must be the protection of their citizens. In this country, we take for granted the freedoms and liberties that have been built up over many centuries. Do many of our constituents think about the threats that are posed by Islamic terrorists? No, they do not, and that is quite right as they have to go about their daily business. None the less, there is a serious threat. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has just mentioned the fact that some people believe that this threat is similar to that posed by the IRA. It is not similar to IRA terrorism. It is not similar to other terrorist organisations that act against states. Ideologically, this is a corrupted version of Islam that is hellbent on taking away the liberties and the way of life that we have built up over many centuries and that we in this House support. It also involves individuals who are prepared to take part in atrocities, including by taking their own lives, against all types of communities. That was certainly not the case with other terrorist organisations. What we are dealing with here is a new type of threat.

I agree with previous speakers when they asked whether, in an ideal world, we would have control orders or TPIMs. No, we would not. There is a recognition that, in a small group of cases, the state needs to act to protect its citizens. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who is not in his place, said that we should not make this a party political matter. I must say that that is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrat party, which made it a very political matter at the previous election.

I do not know what fantasy world the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) lives in, but it is clear that he has a distorted view of control orders and the TPIMs arrangement. I know that Government Members scoffed when I suggested that the courts were doing their job when they turned down control orders. Well, they were; it was built into the process. The hon. Gentleman stated that the relocation of people was tantamount to a Soviet-style regime. No, it was not. In that system, the High Court could review cases and, in some instances, they overturned them. It was doing its job as defined by the legislation. Four cases were rejected. The idea that the Home Secretary has put over today that the courts were the reason for changing control orders was nailed by the independent reviewer, David Anderson, in his report. He said:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts (which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent to TRA”—

terrorist-related activity.

In an ideal world, we would want to prosecute such cases, but it is not possible. That does not mean that those individuals are not dangerous to our citizens and our way of life, but what TPIMs have done—they were referred to by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) as control orders-lite, which is exactly what they are—is to affect two fundamental issues: the arbitrary two-year time limit and relocation. I know that the Liberal Democrats might not want to be reminded of being lectured by Lord Carlile, but what he said is important and interesting. He said:

“With my experience from the beginning of control orders until early this year, I wonder why we are troubling to replace a functioning system with another that has almost entirely the same arms, body and legs, but…there is one leg missing from the Bill, and for now, in my view, it gives this legislation a distinct limp. It is the continuing power to order relocation, subject, of course, to the usual court procedures.”

Again, that is something that the hon. Member for Cambridge seems to forget about. Lord Carlile went on to say:

“On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 October 2011; Vol. 730, c. 1176.]

Clearly, the TPIMs system has taken two of the fundamental provisions away. The question for the Government and the Home Secretary today, which she refused constantly to answer, was about the six individuals who will come off TPIMs in the next week. What will happen to them? She gave us an assurance that the Security Service has put in place the necessary monitoring systems, but we need to know about that as the public need that reassurance. Without it, people who are a threat to the liberties we take for granted in this country will walk free on our streets. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary simply to say, “Trust me, this will happen.” These people are either a threat or not a threat, but the public need to know.

I do not often agree with the editorial of The Sun, which said this morning:

“The Coalition is relaxing terror controls just as Britain enters a perilous era.”

Border Control Scheme

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The pilot is still being evaluated, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that the initial reported information suggests that it led to more interception of illegal immigrants, fraudulent documents, drugs and guns. The initial signs from the management information that we have suggest that the pilot was extremely positive, but there will be a full evaluation and then we will decide what is best to do for the future.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) about Durham Tees Valley airport, will the Minister say exactly how many private flights arrived and were not checked? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he publish it?

[Damian Green]

As I have said several times, every private flight is checked against the warnings index. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, characteristically chuntering from a sedentary position, as she does throughout, is talking about that happening when flights arrive. It is actually safer to check them before they arrive, and that is what the warnings index is for. All private flights are checked against the warnings index before they arrive, and I tell the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I will tell her, if she will stop talking for a second and listen, that it is safer to check them before they arrive. That was why her Government and the current Government spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the e-Borders project—so that we could get the information before people came to this country. That was how we managed to prevent 68,000 people from even getting on planes to come here. If the Opposition Front Benchers cannot understand that stopping people before they arrive here is a better system, I fear that they do not understand the first thing about immigration control.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

What are the Government doing to tackle the problem of sham marriages in the immigration system?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

That was a killer question.

[Damian Green]

Some Labour Members seem not to think this an important issue, but it is an extremely important issue. Part of our summer crackdown has been precisely aimed at sham marriages, and that campaign has produced more than 800 arrests. Perhaps most vividly, and extremely regrettably, a Church of England vicar has been convicted of facilitating sham marriages. We are working very hard with the Church authorities to make sure that nothing like this happens in future and that we help vicars, those in register offices and all such people to make sure that they are not accidentally involved in any more of this type of criminality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

5. What estimate she has made of the likely effect on the number of police community support officers in post of implementation of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

13. What estimate she has made of the likely effect on the number of police community support officers in post of implementation of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

PCSOs are an important part of the policing family, providing a visible, uniformed presence on our streets. It is for police forces and authorities to determine how they deploy their personnel, but we are clear that forces should be focusing on finding efficiencies in back-office and support functions to protect front-line policing.

[Nick Herbert]

We do not set the number of PCSOs; that is a decision for chief constables. When I speak to chief constables throughout the country, I, like the hon. Gentleman, find that they value police community support officers, and there is an overwhelming desire on the part of chief constables to protect PCSO numbers, in so far as is possible, as an important part of the delivery of neighbourhood policing. I share that view with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

On Friday last week, Durham MPs met the deputy chief constable of Durham, who said that the constabulary was just about to announce 190 compulsory redundancies. When asked whether that would include community support officers, he said it could not give a guarantee, because the decision was dependent on whether its central Government grant was going to be protected. Can the Minister guarantee Durham that its money from central Government for PCSOs will be protected?

[Nick Herbert]

We will announce the specific allocations for forces and the future of particular grants later on this year, but on 20 October the chief constable of Durham said:

“It will be business as usual as far as local communities—and local criminals—are concerned… our commitment to neighbourhood policing is undiminished.”