European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

By focusing on high-skilled migration and not low-skilled migration, this package is perfectly capable of reducing immigration. Indeed, I believe it will reduce it to much lower, much more sustainable levels.

Another very important aspect of our future immigration system is that it is designed to meet the needs of the entire United Kingdom. Immigration is a reserved matter, but it is important that we take into account the particular circumstances of different parts of the UK. That is why we will continue with our shortage occupation list policy to meet the needs of Scotland, and we will also consider similar measures for Wales. In recognition of Northern Ireland’s position as the only part of the UK that will have a land border with the EU, we are asking the MAC to compile a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland.

I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. We are long-standing friends, allies and partners, and we will preserve the common travel area, as well as the rights that Irish citizens enjoy. There is an unbreakable bond between the people of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and that will never change.

Together, these changes will deliver a system that backs employers, giving them access to highly skilled workers, while also ensuring that they can drive up productivity and wages. It will also support the public services we all rely on, giving them access to the skilled workers they need.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has said he could never contemplate anything that put Northern Ireland in a different position. Why then does the withdrawal agreement, in the backstop proposals, specifically do that and create a border down the Irish sea? The Government have pledged repeatedly that they would not even contemplate such a thing, but it is now in the agreement—in black and white—in the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol.

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend makes an observation about the withdrawal agreement. It does of course include the backstop, but the Government’s intention is to avoid the backstop altogether. Even if there was such a need—if we had not reached a final agreement within the two-year period, which I believe we absolutely can—there is an option for the Government to extend the implementation period, which would avoid the issue that my right hon. Friend has highlighted.

So far, I have outlined some significant changes to our immigration system, which will be implemented in a phased approach from 2021. However, in some other areas there will be continuity rather than change. EU citizens already living here will continue to be able to live their lives here much as they do now. We value their significant contribution to the UK, and whatever happens, as we have said many times before, we want them to stay. We know how important our EU friends are to our economy, our society, our families, our history and also our future.

We have launched a series of trials of the EU settlement scheme, and I am pleased to say that they have all gone well so far. The scheme will be open to all EU citizens living in the UK by 30 March, and it will be run in the event of deal or no deal. The scheme is designed to be short, simple and user-friendly, and we need everyone to participate.

Some right hon. and hon. Members have questioned why we need such a scheme in the first place. One of the reasons is to have a clear picture of who is in the country. I saw at first hand with Windrush the problems of not having a comprehensive registration scheme, and we cannot allow something like that ever to happen again. The decision made many decades ago not to have a suitable registration scheme for Commonwealth citizens in the UK was in hindsight a huge mistake, and I will not repeat it on my watch. There will be a proper, easy-to-use scheme in place for our EU friends so that their rights are protected. We will have to communicate it clearly to ensure the scheme is fully used, but our message to EU citizens throughout is absolutely clear: “Deal or no deal, we want you to stay”.

Although we have made it very clear that, after Brexit, EU citizens will be able to continue their lives much as before, not all EU member states have made a similar commitment to British citizens living in their countries. In fact, a number of countries have given no public assurances about the status of British nationals in the event of no deal. I think that is unacceptable, and I urge them to do so without any further delay.

I have outlined today what this deal means for immigration. For the first time in a generation, we will be able to build an immigration system that is designed in Britain, is made in Britain and serves only our national interest. The deal protects not only EU citizens living in the UK, but UK nationals living in the EU. It also goes much further. It is about protecting our economy and our security, and creating an immigration system over which we have full control.

Yes, the deal is a compromise—no one is claiming that it is perfect—but it is the only deal on offer that provides an orderly exit from the EU. The fact is that the clock is ticking. Now is the time for everyone to get behind this deal. It is in our hands to decide if we want this deal, no deal or, indeed, no Brexit at all. I know which option I prefer, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to join me in supporting this deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this historically important debate. While there are many varying and strongly held views on both sides of the House about the Prime Minister’s proposed deal, all right hon. and hon. Members can agree that the votes we will cast next Tuesday will in all probability be the most important votes that any of us will ever cast in our political lifetime.

On a personal note, I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) for some 20 years. He and I come at this issue from utterly different perspectives. I was an infantryman and he was a cavalryman, and anyone who would call him a traitor has clearly never met him. In fact, the idea that Churchill’s grandson could be such a thing is clearly ludicrous. I say to anyone who would be foolish enough to repeat that ridiculous assertion that, in the immortal words of our Defence Secretary, they should go away and shut up.

I entered this House some 18 years ago. I made my maiden speech on 4 July 2001, and I spoke against the treaty of Nice on the principle that I might as well start as I mean to go on. While I cannot claim anything like the 40-year record of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I can at least say that I have been fairly consistent on European matters stretching back nearly two decades. In 2008, I served as shadow Europe Minister, reporting to the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, when we debated the Lisbon treaty. As his number two, it was my duty to debate much of the hard detail of that 300-page treaty. I remember it well as we spent 40 nights doing it. Despite that extensive debate, night after night, it soon became apparent that the House of Commons could not change so much as a single punctuation mark in the treaty. The Commons had effectively been completely neutered, and it is that experience that finally convinced me that we would one day have to leave the European Union.

Next Tuesday, we will be voting on two documents. The first is the political declaration. It is full of warm words but, as we are all aware, it is completely meaningless legally and has no force whatsoever in international law. It is the equivalent of, “I promise I will respect you in the morning,” but it is in no way enforceable. In stark contrast, the withdrawal agreement is a 585-page draft international treaty which, if this House were to approve it, would become binding on this country in international law. I read the Lisbon treaty cover to cover, and I can assure the House that I have read the withdrawal agreement, too. Having done so, and knowing what is in it, I am utterly determined to vote against it, so I will briefly explain why.

First, we will not take back control of our money. Under the proposed agreement, the UK has agreed to pay the EU approximately £39 billion. The methodology for this is laid out in part 5 of the agreement, on financial provisions, specifically articles 133 to 157. In short, we will pay that £39 billion without any guarantees in return. With this country having just been through a period of considerable austerity I cannot justify to my constituents paying such a huge sum of money without at least some binding guarantees about the nature of the future relationship we would get in return. This is all in stark contrast to Margaret Thatcher at Fontainebleau in 1984, when rather than give up £39 billion for nothing, she famously said, “I want my money back”. And she got it when she won the so-called British rebate, which has saved this country tens of billions of pounds ever since. Would that we had negotiated with equal resolve in this instance!

Secondly, we are not taking back control of our laws. Under the draft agreement, the UK would remain bound by EU laws in several critical areas, such as social policy, employment policy, environmental policy and customs. We would effectively become a rule taker, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas, having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.

Thirdly, we could be locked into a customs union without the ability to leave. This is the so-called Irish backstop, contained in the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol on pages 301 to 475 of the agreement. In short, if we enter the backstop, we enter a customs union, despite having clearly pledged in our manifesto not to do so, and that would materially constrain our ability to sign international trade deals with other countries, including the United States, our single largest trading partner in the world.

Moreover, as the Attorney General’s legal advice has made crystal clear, having entered the backstop, we could leave only with the consent of the EU. This has often been referred to in the House as the “Hotel California” dilemma—in other words, you can check out, but you can never leave.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Check in.

[Mr Francois]

No, check out.

I have seen the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), but unfortunately it in no way affects the wording of the withdrawal agreement, which, as a treaty, would override it, so the provisions in his well-intentioned amendment are unfortunately, in practice, legally naive.

Fourthly, we risk undermining the integrity of the UK. The Government have told us repeatedly that they would never even contemplate creating a border down the Irish sea. Despite this, not only have they contemplated it; they have legislated for it in writing, because the agreement in the protocol creates internal borders within the UK, whereby Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas, such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This is one of the most compelling reasons why the DUP have said repeatedly that they will vote against this toxic withdrawal agreement, and I am 100% with them.

We should also remember that treating Northern Ireland differently threatens to break up the integrity of the UK. We know, from the excellent article written recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), that the secretary-general of the European Commission, Martin Selmayr, has said that losing Northern Ireland is “the price of Brexit”. I cannot possibly pay that price or contemplate the break-up of the UK or anything that would encourage further separatism in Scotland. For that reason, too, I will vote against the deal.

Lastly, the agreement would ultimately be overseen by the European Court of Justice. Article 174 of the agreement, on page 286, envisages a situation in which both sides cannot agree on aspects of its implementation. In this case, they would create an arbitration panel to resolve the dispute, and the article clearly states that the European Court of Justice, where the matter affects Union law, which is very wide-ranging, would be the ultimate arbiter. It would decide the question and its rulings

“shall be binding on the arbitration panel.”

That would override this Parliament and our Supreme Court.

It has often been argued that my colleagues and I on the European Research Group do not want a deal. That is not true. We want a deal, but not this deal. What we want is often referred to as the super-Canada option, because it takes an existing EU-Canada free trade agreement, signed by the EU in 2016, and amends it into a more comprehensive free trade agreement by which we could trade equitably with the EU but outside the single market, the customs union and the ECJ. Under such an arrangement, we would really have left the EU. I want to make it absolutely clear that that, and not no deal, is our desired end state.

In summary, I hope that everyone who votes on this agreement on Tuesday night will be able to look their constituents firmly in the eye and say they have read it. It seems to me that as professional legislators that is the least we can do. The British people voted in a referendum to leave the EU by a majority of more than 1 million votes, and I believe that we as parliamentarians have a moral obligation to follow their instruction, but this agreement does not do that. It would leave us in effect hanging half in, half out of the EU, which is something that the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her excellent speech at Lancaster House in 2017.

Moreover, the agreement, if we were to approve it, would involve us giving up £39 billion for nothing, leave us as a rule taker, potentially lead us into a backstop from which there is no escape, threaten the break-up of the UK, and still leave us under the suzerainty of the ECJ. We would be a vassal state. This country has never bowed the knee to anyone in almost 1,000 years and I do not believe we should start now. I have read this. This is the best deal since Munich. This House of Commons has been told by The Telegraph and The Sun that this is a surrender document. It is. We in this House have never surrendered to anyone, and we never ever will, including next Tuesday night.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Salisbury Incident

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend is right. When we meet the people who do the job of keeping us safe every day, we find that they are honest, law-abiding, decent people of all backgrounds and all political persuasions who are determined to uphold this country’s values, which include the rule of law and the protection of rights. It is unfair to doubt them in the way in which they are sometimes doubted in parts of the political arena, when it is often politicians who have made regretful decisions, rather than it being about the intelligence services’ intelligence.

We have heard a number of supportive voices from both sides of the House, including from the Labour party and members of its Front-Bench team. I will say one thing about the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). He has for many years challenged the Government of the day when our intelligence services have done something that he does not like, and he is allowed to do that. He has a record of that and he is proud of it, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. When the Russian intelligence services have done the same, he has somehow not yet been able to make the same challenge to the Government of Russia as he has historically made to the Government of Britain. That is where I would leave it; I think that is the best way to reflect on it. Apart from that, I do not doubt the Labour Front-Bench team’s support of our police and blue-light agencies; nor do I doubt the wishes of Labour Members to support this investigation and to discuss it and the next measures to take, many of which they have supported. Labour should, though, think about calling out the responsibility for this attack. I think that is a fair position to take.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I hope that the Minister will follow my logic. A couple of weeks ago, it was widely reported that the head of MI5 had offered the Leader of the Opposition a detailed briefing on the threats that this country faces. Does the Minister know whether, after the Prime Minister’s statement and what she said about the GRU’s involvement, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to take up that very sensible offer from the head of MI5?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong for me to detail conversations between our intelligence services and the Leader of the Opposition, our Prime Minister or anyone else. I regularly give briefs, in an open manner and on Privy Council terms, to some Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and we have a full and honest discussion about things. I have never found the shadow Home Secretary wanting; she has always wanted to know and has always been engaged. I am not going to speculate about the Leader of the Opposition’s relationships with the security services or anyone else; I am simply reflecting the fact that the people in our police and intelligence services are good people and they are doing the right thing. That does not mean that we do not hold them to account, because we do. The Intelligence and Security Committee does, along with everything else. The important thing about this event is that it was not an ad hoc, amateur event; it was the state-sanctioned use of a chemical weapon on our soil that lead to the death of a British citizen and could have led to the deaths of many more. It is therefore unbelievable that we should have any doubt about calling people out when they are found. It is now in multicolour, and we can see all the presentations.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

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

[Gavin Newlands]

I would like to echo the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to our police and security services and all those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. We owe them a debt of gratitude. I also thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for their assistance during the passage of the Bill. This is the first time I have been in charge of a Bill for the Scottish National party. I also thank the individuals and organisations that provided evidence—[Hon. Members: “We can’t hear you.”] Is that okay? Have I got you now? Right, thank you. I also thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for their collegiate approach during the Bill Committee’s deliberations.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I do not agree with it, but I want to hear it.

[Gavin Newlands]

I appreciate that.

The Minister himself, despite the late tabling of new clause 2, has been open to improvements suggested by the Opposition, and I thank him also.

The SNP supports the Government in their attempt to modernise this crucially important legislation, and we appreciate the need to combat the constantly evolving threat from international terrorism in the modern digital world, but we must be extremely careful about how this is executed. We are fully aware of the challenges that we face from increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists, and we are in favour of giving law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies the powers they require to keep our communities safe, but those powers must be subject to stringent checks and safeguards if we are to maintain the balance of security and civil liberties that we currently enjoy.

While stressing that we support the Government’s aims, I remind the Minister that they have awarded themselves, and the police and security services, an enormous amount of power in the last three years, not only—potentially—in this Bill, but in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Immigration Act 2016, to name but two. Sadly, more often than not the Government have simply not got the balance right between civil liberties and the extension of intrusive powers.

If Scotland were independent—and that time is coming—we would no doubt be drafting and enacting more legislation to deal with the increased threat of terrorism. Luckily, that legislation would not be drafted by me, but I cannot help wondering how similar our measures would be. I should like to think—in fact, I am positive—that we would ensure that our Ministers, our police and our security services had the necessary powers, without impinging too much on civil liberties. That, I am sorry to say, often seems to be an afterthought in the case of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to tackle knife crime.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to tackle knife crime.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have published a serious violence strategy that sets out a range of actions to tackle knife crime, including a national media campaign, continuing support for police action under Operation Sceptre, an offensive weapons Bill and a new round of the Community Fund.

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Offenders need to know that if they commit serious crimes, a prison cell awaits them. That is a huge deterrent, and it is also very much a part of the serious violence strategy.

[Mr Francois]

Unfortunately, we have seen an increase in the prevalence of knife crime in Essex over the past year. Some of it is associated with county lines drugs operations moving out into Essex from the capital. What action is the Home Secretary’s Department taking, in association with the Essex police, to fight this menace on our streets?

[Sajid Javid]

I know that the police in Essex taking this issue seriously. Among the actions that they are taking, one thing I would encourage them to do more of is to apply to the Community Fund and to focus a bit more on early intervention, which I know they are interested in and have done successfully before. They have received funding for such projects before, and I would encourage them to seek it again.

Windrush

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on both counts. My predecessor said it, I have said it and I am happy to say it again: the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally. There is nothing illegal whatsoever about it. Because the Immigration Act 1971 did not lead to documentation for those people, which has become familiar for many Members of the House, it is now right that we put that right and make it much easier to get them the documentation and formalise their status where that has not already been formalised. He is also right to point out the distinction between legal—the Windrush generation and many others—and illegal.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Sajid Javid]

I will, one more time.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Home Secretary for his generosity in giving way to Members on both sides of the House. The Windrush generation helped to rebuild this country after world war two, and we owe them a debt. Governments of all political colours make mistakes. It is clear that, despite the motion, some of this problem goes back beyond 2010, but we are where we are. Now that he has responsibility for this, can he confirm that he will strain every sinew to see that we do right by these people who did right by us?

[Sajid Javid]

I say to my right hon. Friend that I can confirm that, and I will do so. I will come on to cover in more detail the point he has made.

I want to address directly any concerns that people might still have about coming forward. As I told the House on Monday, any information provided to the taskforce will be used for no other immigration purpose than that of helping people to confirm their status. Any information provided will not be passed to immigration enforcement.

Let me remind the House of some of the other important changes this Government have introduced in the light of the Windrush situation. A Commonwealth citizen who settled in the UK before 1973 will now be entitled to apply for British citizenship—the legal status that they deserve—free of charge. We have made it clear that we will make the process they need to go through to get citizenship as simple as possible. While it is right that we are swiftly progressing urgent cases, all of this needs a proper legal underpinning, as hon. Members have suggested. That is why I will bring forward the necessary legislation to cover fee exemptions, fee reductions and changes to the citizenship process as soon as possible. I also recognise that, in some cases, people have suffered severe financial loss, and I want to put that right. That is why we are setting up a new compensation scheme. It will be overseen by an independent person, and we will consult on its scope, because it is important that we get the detail of this scheme right from the moment it begins.

It is essential in this debate that we do not lose sight of the distinction between legal and illegal migration. Successive Governments, including the previous Labour Government, have put in place what I would call a “compliant environment”—measures to tackle illegal migration—and this is a perfectly sensible approach to take. I will give some examples. The first NHS treatment charges for overseas visitors and illegal migrants were introduced in 1982, as were checks by employers on someone’s right to work in 1997, measures on access to benefits in 1999 and civil penalties for employing illegal migrants in 2008. More recent measures in the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016, which were debated in this House at length, introduced checks by landlords before property is rented out and checks by banks on account holders.

As I made clear in this House on my first day in this role and as I have just said, I do not believe that the term “hostile environment” is in tune with our values as a country. This is about having a compliant environment. Measures over many years to tackle illegal immigration are of course a good thing, and we stand by those measures. They are designed to ensure that work, benefits and services in the UK go only to those who have the right to access them, and that is what the public rightly expect the Government to do. We are protecting our public services, and taking action against rogue employers, landlords and organised crime groups who exploit vulnerable migrants and damage our communities. We carefully balance the need to tackle illegal immigration with the need to protect those who are here lawfully from unintended consequences.

Police Funding

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The Minister has just talked about £450 million. Does he agree with the view of Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, that the Prime Minister misled the public—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Oh!

[Sir Edward Davey]

I said “the public”, and I am quoting the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, who said that the PM had misled the public over claims that there was an extra £450 million for the police in 2018-19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am about to come on to the history before I get on to the future. Again, I find it disappointing that Labour’s approach to the complexity of modern policing and its highly complex challenges is, as usual, to look back. Labour Members want to take us back to 2010, as the right hon. Gentleman has just encouraged me to do. Yes, we have a smaller police system than we did in 2010. Why? Because the coalition Government had to take radical action to get on top of a reckless and unsustainable deficit. Against a background of falling crime and stable demand on the police, it was recognised, not least by the thoughtful former shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham, that there was considerable scope to improve the efficiency of the police.

In London—our biggest force—we have broadly the same number of police officers as we did in 2008, we have less recorded crime than in 2008, and the police operation is costing the taxpayer £700 million a year less than in 2008. In Labour language, that means savage Tory cuts. To the rest of the world, it is a more efficient police force. I believed the Metropolitan Police Commissioner—[Interruption.] Labour MPs do not like to hear this, but I believed the commissioner, the excellent Cressida Dick, when she said:

“I think we can make some further savings. I am confident that the Met at the end of my commissionership might be smaller but could be as effective, if not more effective, through amongst other things the use of technology and different ways of working.”

As we are encouraged to look back, rather than forward, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the police leadership and police and crime commissioners on their impressive work over the past seven years to deliver a more efficient service. I also recognise the contribution that frontline officers and staff have made to that process.

[Mr Francois]

On the behalf of my constituents, I thank the Minister for allowing greater flexibility in the police precept. In Essex, our excellent police, crime and fire commissioner, Roger Hirst, has taken full advantage of the precept, so that we will now be reinforced by an extra 150 police officers, which will take the Essex constabulary back up to 3,000 police, and we warmly welcome them.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my right hon. Friend and other Essex MPs for making representations on behalf of Essex, as other MPs across the House have done for their areas. The point that the shadow Minister deliberately missed is that PCCs asked for that additional flexibility, and she also ignored the fact that they received overwhelming approval when they went to the public and asked the question. It is hypocritical to accuse us of unfair taxation and of using council tax to fund local policing, as Labour is the party that doubled council tax when it was in power. I am not taking any lessons on preventive taxation from the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Can we just nail the point about whether PCCs asked for this flexibility? Roger Hirst in Essex conducted a survey to ask people across the county whether they would be prepared to pay a little more in council tax in return for more police, and he received a resounding yes.

[Mr Hurd]

Yes, he did, and he was not alone. There has been overwhelming support wherever the question has been asked, which is why Roger Hirst and others are on record as supporting the settlement for providing additional funding for police forces in 2018-19. This debate is a complete red herring from the Labour party. If we want increased investment in our policing, it has to be paid for. There are only two ways of paying: either we increase borrowing and the taxpayer pays interest on that borrowing, or we increase taxation. The vast majority of funding for our police system still comes from the central taxpayer, and we felt it appropriate to ask whether people would be prepared to pay an additional 25p a week to support local policing. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming answer was yes.

UK Passport Contract

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have learned of a new category of person today: the French-made person.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Made by other French people.

[Mr Speaker]

Made by other French people; yes.

Police Officer Safety

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on her campaign to protect the protectors.

For the past year I have taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which I would wholeheartedly recommend to all Members of Parliament. It has given me a unique window on the world of everyday life in the police force and the tasks that the police have to undertake on our behalf. I have shadowed various departments in Essex police and seen the incredible work that members of our police service do daily, the challenges and dangers they face, and the frankly astonishing levels of commitment to public service they show. I put on the record my thanks to Essex police for helping me take up that opportunity.

Many of the brave men and women in our police recognise that we are in a challenging period for policing. At a time when the Government are asking them to do more for less, they have absolutely risen to the challenge. Front-line officers put their own safety at risk every day in order to keep people like ourselves safe. I have heard first-hand accounts of officers being punched, kicked, spat at and even bitten, not to mention receiving verbal threats.

Spitting has already been discussed. Although it is often not seen as causing physical harm, not only is it truly disgusting but, as has been mentioned, there are real health risks involved. I would like to have a wider debate on spit hoods. If anyone feels squeamish about them I encourage them to put themselves in the position of an officer being spat at.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I recently went out on a ride-along with officers from Essex police. I witnessed a suspect who was being restrained attempting to spit at a police officer. It was a really ugly thing to see. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look more seriously at the option of spit hoods, because if we really want to protect our police officers we need to do something concrete?

[Rebecca Harris]

Absolutely unquestionably—spitting is a revolting thing to do. Often the last resort for someone being arrested is to try to spit, out of spite.

We have already heard about the around 23,000 assaults on police officers across the country. I was shocked to learn that there were just under 700 assaults in Essex alone. However, many more go unreported, sometimes because officers feel the offence is so commonplace it will not be pursued and, more worryingly, that the sentence will perhaps not reflect the assault’s effect on the officer.

The innovation of body-cams has been very effective in its roll-out in Essex. The cameras have reduced assaults on officers and increased the possibility of prosecutions. But they do not in themselves deal with the inconsistency on reporting, sentencing or prosecution. I spoke to the chair of the Essex branch of the Police Federation about officer experience post assault. What I heard was largely very positive with regard to how the force itself supports its officers. However, the chair stressed again and again that there were incidents where the psychological effect on the victim of an attack was not taken into account in sentencing, whereas it would be for many other crimes.

It is right that the courts, through the independence of the judiciary, have discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate sentence, but in cases of assaults on officers, courts really need to consider the implications for the officer’s mental health. When a sentence is very low or non-existent, there is further psychological damage to the officer involved; they feel undervalued, unappreciated and not paid the respect they deserve for putting their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. That is not good enough. We must protect the very people who do so much to keep us safe. It must be clear that any attack on a police officer will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The independent Sentencing Council produced the guidelines; it is important it recognises how seriously the public feel about attacks on serving police officers.

We should not fall into seeing attacks on police officers as a hazard of the job or as in some way so everyday an occurrence that they are less significant than assaults on members of the public. I urge everyone to take the contrary view: that such attacks ought to be judged more severely, as police officers deserve our protection and support in return. That point must be repeatedly stressed to the Crown Prosecution Service. Anecdotally, we know that there are concerns about the wide variation around the country in the approach taken by the CPS towards assaults on officers. The message needs to go out to the CPS loud and clear that assaults on police must be charged at the most appropriate gradation, and that that must be consistently applied across the country. Likewise, I would like the message to go to the judiciary that they must understand that we want the police to have the full support of the law behind them.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement that police forces will be required to record offences against officers properly as part of their crime statistics. Our police service is absolutely second to none in the world, which is why they need support from us that is second to none.

Legislative Reform Order (Epping Forest)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I begin by apologising for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of this debate. I was attempting to enter the House but the events occurring in the immediate area around Parliament right now have undemocratically deprived me of access. Given that we are debating a narrow order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the workings of democracy, so I will not do so or take up any more of the House’s time on the subject, but I do make the point that if Members of Parliament are denied access to the House of Commons through action taken by other people in the Westminster area, that is an affront to democracy. That is the best excuse I have ever had for being late!

Although this legislative reform order specifically refers to Epping forest and I represent the Epping Forest constituency, I must explain that the piece of land in question is not in my constituency, but almost entirely in that of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). It is he who has the duty to speak on behalf of local people, but I have every sympathy with the points he has made. Wanstead Flats are part of Epping forest, and although my Epping Forest constituency does not cover the whole of the forest geographically I am nevertheless always concerned for the protection of our wonderful and ancient forest. It is the duty of us all, and particularly those with an interest in this particular area of London and Essex, to be concerned for the preservation of Epping forest itself. Any threat to our forest is unacceptable.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead has waxed lyrical—and rightly so—about the dangers of enclosure and about the historical position that has seen the people of east London and Essex fight literally for centuries to ensure the preservation of our forest. As the hon. Gentleman has just explained, that culminated in the Epping Forest Act. All of us who are concerned with the forest and its preservation will never allow anything to happen, in the House or anywhere else, that would undermine its preservation. Enclosure was wicked and took resources away from people who needed them, but nowadays the threat is somewhat different: it is generally a threat of house building and overdevelopment on what ought to be one of the most important lungs of London. I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said in that regard.

In 1882 Queen Victoria visited High Beach, which is in my constituency, and only a couple of weeks ago I went to see the oak tree that she planted when she was there. Actually, that one died; another was planted two years later, and still stands as a permanent reminder of the importance of preserving the forest for the people. Queen Victoria said that she was dedicating

“this beautiful forest to the… enjoyment of my people”

for ever.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the forest must be preserved for the enjoyment of the people for ever, but I disagree with him slightly on another point. I feel able to support the order because it refers specifically to a 90-day period. If it were a general order allowing the forest to be used in any way in perpetuity, I would join the hon. Gentleman in expressing deep concern. Furthermore, the area in question constitutes only about 2% of Wanstead Flats and is already used for circuses, fireworks and other forms of enjoyment. It is therefore geographically suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used during those 90 days.

I hear what Opposition Members say about the payment being made by the Metropolitan police. As the Minister explained earlier—I was not present, but owing to the wonders of modern technology I was able to listen to her on a mobile phone—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Hands-free?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, it was. I am glad to be able to make that absolutely clear.

As the Minister explained, the Metropolitan police are making a significant payment to the conservators of Epping forest, in lieu of rent, and in addition to the payment for the restoration of the site. I hear what Opposition Members say about the amount involved, but the important point is that the entire amount paid by the Metropolitan police will be used for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats. Opposition Members argue that the amount should be greater, but I do not agree. Money paid by the Metropolitan police is taxpayers’ money, and if it is used for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats, it obviously cannot be used for the prevention of crime and the maintenance of law and order. There is a wider interest. It is absolutely right for an amount to be paid for the enhancement of Wanstead Flats, but it should not be larger than the amount that has already been negotiated.