Policing and Crime
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Judicious only until the mayoral election, after which the number will be cut. The Mayor has realised, as Government Members everywhere else in the country seem not to have done, that the public do not like police cuts, so of course he is pretending to put the numbers up, having seen them fall already since the election.
Government Members tell us that all these problems will be solved by cutting bureaucracy, but even the Home Secretary’s most optimistic claims are to save the equivalent of 1,200 police officers in several years’ time. Unfortunately, she is cutting 12,000 officers now. As for the A19s, you couldn’t make it up, with up to 2,000 experienced officers being forced to take early retirement. Chief constables are being put in an impossible position, forced to use A19s to make the savings that their forces need. However, now we see, with the calculations from the House of Commons Library, that when we take into account the lost tax and pension contributions that those police officers and police authorities were making, forcing those officers to retire early will actually cost the taxpayer more. Tens of millions of pounds spent and thousands fewer experienced officers on the beat—how on earth does that fight crime?
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can answer that question.
Michael Ellis
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being generous in giving way. Will she accept that Labour would be cutting £7 for every £8 cut under the Government’s proposals, that it is completely unacceptable for the police, as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has reported, to have only 11% of police officers on duty and available to the public at any one time, and that by cutting bureaucracy more police can be put on the streets, rather than filling in forms in the police stations?
Yvette Cooper
It is right to keep working hard to cut bureaucracy, but the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the reality of what is happening across the country. In west Yorkshire, for example, the police are now having to go back to their offices between incidents to deal with the bureaucracy themselves because of the scale of the cuts, whereas previously they could ring in with the details of an offence or incident that they had attended. In the west midlands and Warwickshire, time and again police officers are having to do more paperwork and bureaucracy because of the scale of the Government’s cuts.
It is not just the cuts that are causing the problems: the Government are also making it harder for the police and communities to fight crime. As a result of the DNA restrictions, the police estimate that there are 1,000 fewer criminal matches every year, including for serious offenders. It means not holding DNA at all in up to three quarters of rape cases, where charges are ultimately not brought, and we know the difficulties in rape cases.
On CCTV, the new code of practice means a bubble wrap of bureaucracy, with more checks and balances on a single camera than the Government are introducing for police and crime commissioners, yet the Home Secretary knows the benefits that CCTV can bring. They have just installed CCTV at Twyford train station in her constituency. Did she complain then that they had not done an impact assessment on the environment, privacy or disproportionality or introduce safeguards, as her code of practice required? No. She congratulated the station manager, saying that people needed the
“added reassurance that they can travel in safety”.
Too right they do, and they do not want too much bureaucracy to prevent them from getting the reassurance they need.
Government Reductions in Policing
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know from her constituency the impact that the cuts are having on communities across Merseyside. While Merseyside has certainly done excellent work in getting as many police on the beat as possible and in ensuring that its officers are as available as possible, as well as making very substantial efficiency savings, it is now being penalised. Its services are being hit, and it is the local communities in Merseyside that are paying the price. The truth is that the Home Secretary is making visibility more difficult to achieve in Merseyside, not easier.
It is the same story in Warwickshire, where the force is having to take police officers off the front line to cover critical support jobs that have gone, and South Yorkshire’s chief constable has said:
“A reduction in back officer support will put an increased burden on operational officers, detracting them from frontline duties.”
HMIC said in July last year that
“a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that HMIC also said last year, in a report commissioned by her Government, that only 11% of police officers were available to the general public at any one time? Does she not accept that there are efficiencies that can properly be made, and that this Government are cutting forms and bureaucracy that have taken up hundreds of thousands of hours of police time? Those are the kind of efficiency savings that can be made.
Yvette Cooper
We have always said that efficiency savings can be made. That is why we set out 12% reductions, but HMIC said that
“a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
The hon. Gentleman also cited the HMIC figure on visibility, but he is misusing the figures. In fact, HMIC said in its most recent report that it is right that forces should try to increase visibility, but pointed out that policing is a 24/7 service. The report stated:
“HMIC estimate that between five and six officers are needed in order to provide one on duty 24/7…This suggests that, overall, the police are operating at the upper end of the efficiency range.”
That is not my conclusion, but that of the independent HMIC.
Chief constables are being put in an impossible position. They are doing their best within their budgets to deliver strong policing and to reassure the public, but the rug is being pulled out from underneath them. Whichever way we look at it, the evidence from the police and the expert witnesses is clear. The sheer scale and pace of the cuts mean that front-line services, and not just front-line numbers, are being hit. The Home Secretary and her co-defendants can change their story as much as they like, but every claim collapses under interrogation. The evidence from the police and the expert witnesses is damning, and the mood among the jury, as Lord Ashcroft’s polling proves, is already hostile, even though the cuts have barely started to bite. It is little wonder that the Ministers are backing softer sentencing; they know that they are going to be found guilty as charged.
Whatever Ministers say at the Dispatch Box, in their offices and in the TV studios, they are a long way from the reality in the police stations and out on the beat. They are out of touch. They think that if they talk fast enough and loudly enough in management-speak about efficiency, bureaucracy, visibility, availability, back office, middle office and even Middle Earth, it will somehow make the real cuts go away, but it will not. This is all a far cry from their pre-election promises. The Prime Minister promised that the front line would be protected. The Lib Dems wanted 3,000 more officers, not 12,000 fewer. Even the Policing Minister told his local paper, just a year before the election:
“I will continue to press for more PCSOs and police officers”.
So much for that, then.
As for Ministers’ claims that there would be no link between the cuts in police numbers and crime, influential members of their own coalition see things rather differently. Before the election, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) said that
“putting 2,700 more police on the beat in England and Wales will lead to 27,500 more arrests and an extra 24,500 crimes being solved.”
I am not sure that I would sign up to his level of precision, but he made his point. And one prominent Tory Front Bencher said the following:
“The case can certainly be made that the increase in police officers in the last few years has had a positive effect both on providing reassurance to the public and on reducing some crimes…I am making an argument in favour of an increase in police numbers”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1671-73.]
Who said that, in this House? The current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Let us listen to the concerns from the top police. The South Yorkshire chief constable has warned of the impact of higher unemployment, shorter sentences, cuts in probation and cuts in police on increasing crime. The Kent chief constable has said that a 20% cut was
“quite a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there’s a potential impact that crime will rise.”
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady just does not get the fact that this Government are getting rid of much of the bureaucracy that has been tying up the police in red tape and taking them off the job that they want to do—something that the previous Government singularly failed to do. I would have thought that Labour supported us in our efforts to get officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets, but when one of their several former shadow Home Secretaries was asked by the Home Affairs Committee:
“Do you think it would be better if police spent more time on patrol than they do on paperwork?”,
he replied:
“I think that is too simplistic a question for me to give a sensible answer.”
Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to tell us whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that the police should be behind their desks, filling in forms, or does she agree with me that they should be out on the street, fighting crime?
Michael Ellis
Will my right hon. Friend note that Jan Berry, the former president of the Police Federation, wrote only recently that one third of all effort was being duplicated or in some way wasted, and therefore that considerable savings could be made by a reduction in bureaucracy? One third—engineered or duplicated.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the unattractive features of the disorder zone plan was that it required areas to be described, or to describe themselves, as places of disorder? In itself, that was a most unattractive prospect.
James Brokenshire
It would be fair to say that it probably was not the biggest selling point of the policy to have that tag attached to a local area. It was probably, therefore, one of the disincentives. However, the problem had more to do with the levels of bureaucracy, including the impact of making some of the extremely challenging calculations necessary. I do not think that any local authority has felt brave enough to come forward. The Government are committed, therefore, to reducing the burden. The tools and powers available to local authorities must be simple to adopt and proportionate to the problem. Early morning restriction orders, for example, will, by stopping the sale of alcohol, be a simple way for local authorities to tackle specific problems at specific times and on specific days. That is something that we recognise and have taken forward in the Bill. We have sought to apply a more flexible approach through early morning restriction orders.
The late-night levy will be an optional power for local authorities to raise a contribution to the large policing costs incurred in the late-night economy, as well as supporting costs of local authorities in managing the late-night economy. The levy has been specifically designed to be simple for licensing authorities to adopt. We considered the repeal of alcohol disorder zones in our public consultation last year. The responses overwhelmingly supported repeal. Local authorities and the police spoke of the evidential burden, while businesses identified the policy as ineffective. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that alcohol disorder zones should no longer be on the statute book. I therefore ask that the new clause be incorporated in the Bill so that we can finally put this failed policy to rest.
Michael Ellis
The Minister has been urged to make the Bill location-specific, but would that not confer a stigma on certain locations? Would it not also create excessive bureaucracy, as local authorities would have to do far more work? Moreover, would it not depart from the principle that the Bill seeks to implement, namely the establishment of a balance that will assist the police and allay public concern about such problems as disorder?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, which bring us neatly back to the subject of alcohol disorder zones. I do not think that they met the tests that my hon. Friend has just identified. For that reason, we think it right to end a policy that sadly became an alcohol disarray zone, given the challenges that stood in the way of its being brought to fruition. We believe that there is merit in providing local authorities and the police with funds enabling them to manage the late-night economy; we believe that the right way in which to do that is through the late-night levy; and we believe that it is time to end the ADZ episode, which has clearly been a failure.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
General duties of licensing authorities
‘(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (General duties of licensing authorities) insert—
(a) protecting and improving public health.”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
John McDonnell
We shall have another discussion, on aesthetics, later.
I am sure that all Members will be aware that Brian Haw is being treated for cancer, and, whatever our feelings about the protest camp and, in particular, Brian himself, I am sure that we all wish him well in his recovery, even though some might not want a specific geographical location designated for that recovery.
I will explain the background to the amendments, because the issue was excellently debated in what was an entertaining Committee. I am not often placed on such Committees—on average, it happens once every 10 years—but I read the Committee notes and thought that it was an excellent debate about the background to the Bill and the amendments themselves.
As people know, Brian took up his protest a decade ago, and anyone who has ever talked to him will understand his fervent belief in the need for peace and for the avoidance of war, and his concern for the innocent victims of war. His chosen method of protest has been to bear witness in front of the Houses of Parliament to the suffering of others as a result of war, and he has done so by choosing to place an encampment in the square, by addressing Members and others with a loudhailer and by engaging in discussions with others to try to convince them of the errors of entering into military action.
Brian reminds us all of the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place, and he perhaps attempts to influence us in our future decisions. His is a traditional form of protest: peaceful, non-violent and similar to protests that have occurred elsewhere in this country and throughout the world.
When the original proposals came forward under the previous Government, we engaged in that debate and a number of Members expressed their extreme dislike of Brian Haw and his colleagues’ presence outside Parliament. I sat through endless pompous speeches about the sanctity of Parliament square, complaints about not being able to work for the noise of the loudhailer that Brian used, and long-winded debates about the aesthetics of Parliament square. I have a sneaking suspicion that what a number of Members did not like was being reminded of the impact of the decisions that they had taken in this House—decisions that have caused so much human suffering.
The previous Government nevertheless brought forward legislation, which, I think we all agree now, was tedious, bureaucratic and unworkable—and has degenerated into farce. I commend the comedian Mark Thomas for his work to expose its farcical nature. Interestingly, the poor drafting of that legislation meant that it failed to deal with what many Members thought was the harm being done by Brian’s presence, because the legislators—I did not like to point it out to them at the time—failed to make it retrospective, so it never addressed the issue of the encampments. In addition, the permit system became a mockery of what the legislation intended. It degenerated into farce when one person was arrested simply for reading out the names of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I welcomed—and I said so publicly—the statements by the former Opposition that that legislation would be repealed. I made that very clear before the election and during the election campaign as a result of which the coalition Government were formed. The problem is that this Bill does not scrap the previous Government’s proposals. In fact, it impedes peaceful protest. I give this warning: if it goes through, it will degenerate into the same unworkable and unmanageable farce that the previous legislation degenerated into. Having looked at the evidence from Committee and read the discussions, I think that these proposals will put an unmanageable burden on police officers and local authority officers, and increase their vulnerability to conflict rather than reducing it.
In my view, the Government’s proposals are unacceptably restrictive. They replace one unworkable system with another and have the same effect of restricting, for no good, sensible reason, the right of peaceful protest and assembly and free speech in Parliament square. These proposals are still specific to Parliament square, although I accept that the definition is narrower than in the previous Government’s legislation. The proposals still place a burden on a constable, but extend it to a local council officer to direct a person to stop doing something and to use physical force to take equipment away. Under the proposals, a person who is convicted may be fined up to £5,000, which is a level 5 offence—I find that draconian, to say the least, and well over the top—and a formal application would still have to be made concerning loudspeaker use and to prevent the erection of sleeping structures.
The bizarre debate in Committee about what is a sleeping structure was extremely entertaining. The most intense and heated part of the debate involved the modernist versus the traditionalist: those who supported the duvet approach to sleep as against those who supported the blanket and sheet approach. That is the nature of the judgments and valuations that individual police officers will have to make: “Is that a sleeping bag I see in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?”; “Is that a sleeping structure you’re carrying with you or a banner supporting the Police Federation?” It will become absolutely ludicrous. The other issue is this: what if someone can sleep standing up, leaning against a structure or against a wall? Does that become a sleeping structure itself? We will go through the same old problems that we had with the previous legislation.
I will be brief, because other Members want to speak, and there is another important group of amendments to discuss. The reasons for the amendments are very straightforward; they have been rehearsed in Committee and in debates on the previous Government’s legislation. In this country, we pride ourselves on a strong democratic tradition of peaceful protest. That has created climates of opinion external to Parliament that have influenced decisions in this House and the decisions of Governments of all political persuasions. It is linked to the fundamental right to free speech and fundamental right of assembly and association. In everything that we do in this House, it behoves us to guard against undermining any of those basic human rights.
Mr MacShane
I am happy to accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. Arguments have been held for 200 or 300 years about whether Parliament is different from the Executive, and whether elected representatives have something called privilege—not just privilege to speak in Parliament but privilege to come here and make up their minds on how to speak and vote as they think best.
We have been talking about an individual, and I admire his sacrifice over a number of years, but let us remember what happened not so long ago when passions were so high that the very security of this place was changed. As a result, the one, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 demonstrators who had filled Parliament square for their particular moment, expressing their right to protest directly to parliamentarians within the narrow area around Parliament, found that they had prevented many other citizens from being able to enter freely into the House of Commons to discuss matters with us calmly and peacefully.
There is a difference of opinion, and I respect everybody’s point of view. I am just dismayed that compared with when I came into the House, the level of security has changed, denying people access to MPs, as a result of protests that have gone too far and gone wrong. That has caused us some damage. I see quite good rules working in other democracies. If anybody wants to be arrested in Parliament square, or walk through it to make a protest and move on, so be it. However, the notion that there should be a permanent encampment or that Parliament square should be a place where anybody can come to protest at any time goes just a bit too far.
Michael Ellis
I respect the views of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I do not agree with them, but I respect them and the way in which he expressed them. However, I strongly support the provisions in the Bill.
I respect the right to protest, but a number of speakers in the debate have conflated or confused the issue of protest with that of the encampment outside. This is not a personality-driven debate, or it should not be, and one should not sentimentalise the issues involved. I wish to focus, I hope succinctly, on the rights and views of people other than the handful of individuals who have been camped outside for a prolonged period.
People have the right of quiet enjoyment of Parliament square and the facilities therein. I remind hon. Members that the statues have been put up over many years by public subscription. The public have a right to enjoy them, but for at least the past six months there have been fences around them. The taxpayers—not only the residents of the cities of Westminster and London, but people who come from far and wide to Parliament square and Parliament—have the right to use the park, and perhaps have a lunch sandwich.
Some consideration ought also to be given to the servants and agents of this place, and to the police who help to guard it and have to stand in very close proximity to the protest all day for month after month.
Michael Ellis
I am sorry, I cannot give way, because I have been told that I have only two minutes.
The reality is that the encampment is not a traditional form of protest, as it has been described. In my respectful submission, the problem does not have much to do with aesthetics, either. I, for one, am not really interested in what the protest looks like. I am interested in the rights of others to use the square without their quiet enjoyment being obstructed. The nuisance factor also has to be taken into consideration.
The question of sleeping impedimenta is one of fact and degree. We frequently ask police constables to exercise their discretion in many areas of law, some of which are difficult to define, which is part of the reason why we must give them discretion. The term “reasonable” cannot be easily susceptible to definition, because what is “reasonable” will vary depending on the individual circumstances of the event.
We in this country pride ourselves on protest and I certainly support the right to protest, but there must be some balance. Nowhere else in the world would put up with that type of protest over such a prolonged period. That does not mean that other countries are undemocratic for not putting up with 10 years of an encampment—of course they are democratic. They proudly maintain their democracy, and so would we, but we must balance the right of the handful of people who wish to live in Parliament square to the disadvantage of others, and bear in mind the rights of the latter.
Hon. Members have asked, “What harm is being done by the protest?” Criminal damage is one example of harm. Anything that causes action to be taken by another amounts to criminal damage if it means undertaking repair work. Nuisance, noise, hygiene and health and safety issues, and the loss and effect on tourism, also indicate harm. Such persistent protests do harm. We seek not to stop demonstrations, but just to stop people permanently encamping and sleeping in the square, and disguising that as a right to protest.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I shall be very brief and make only a couple of comments, because the Minister will need a few minutes to speak, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will no doubt wish to respond to the debate for a couple of minutes before 5 o’clock. This has been a good debate; we also had one in Committee, when hon. Members on both sides raised many of the issues that we have debated this afternoon.
The Opposition support the Government in the repeal of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 provisions. On both sides of the House, there is a general recognition that despite the intention, those provisions went much further than any of us would have wanted. For example, a woman was arrested for reading out the names of the war dead. Many of us—perhaps all of us—thought that inappropriate.
The Opposition agree with the repeal of the SOCPA provisions, but our position has always been that there is a need to balance the right to protest with the right of others to enjoy Parliament, and to protect their freedom, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said. We want to balance freedoms and to protect the right to protest.
In Committee, we concentrated on the workability of the Bill. I say to the Minister that considerable problems remain. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and my hon. Friends. He has carefully drafted, obviously with some help, a set of alternatives. I do not agree with his alternative, but he has also sought to address some of the problems that the Government seek to address.
I am surprised that the Minister has tabled only two Government amendments—57 and 58—to deal with one of the major problems with the Bill, namely that reasonable force can be used not only by a constable, but by an authorised officer of the council. In the Opposition’s view, the amendments simply do not go far enough. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington were minded to press amendment 185 to a Division, he would find support on the Opposition Front Bench.
Why do the Government amendments not go far enough? The Bill still allows an authorised officer to do all sorts of things with respect to activities in the prohibited area of Parliament square. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out that even with the Government amendment, the Bill still gives the authorised officer—the council employee—significant powers to seize and retain property in the area described in clause 144(1). That is an extension of the power that one would expect authorised officers to have in any circumstances. This is the policing of public protest—not littering, loud music or neighbour nuisance—and the involvement of anybody other than a warranted police officer would be a dangerous extension of power to people who are not servants of the Crown.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
As I have said before, I do not think that it was right to go for 90-day detention and it was not justified by the evidence. There will always be areas where Governments need to be cautious in getting the balance right. Equally, however, they must be cautious not to over-hype the rhetoric and inappropriately claim that problems will somehow be easily solved. There is always a difficult balance to be struck.
I hope that the right hon. Lady, in her tenure as Home Secretary, will not have to deal with some of the extremely difficult and dangerous terrorist incidents that her Labour predecessors had to cope with, such as the Omagh bombing, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred, and the London 7/7 bombings, that led to many of the stronger counter-terrorism measures that her predecessors introduced. I also hope that she will rarely have to deal with some of the deeply disturbing and serious crimes, such as the Soham case, which led to the new procedures on vetting and barring.
The Home Secretary will know that when in the Home Office one can never predict what is coming around the corner, what problems might be uncovered or how one might need to respond in order to protect people’s freedom not to become victims of crime or terrorist threats. In those circumstances, it is wise to build consensus, rather than engaging in the kind of over-simplified political rhetoric that will make it more difficult to strike the right balance in future.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the shadow Home Secretary think it right that the details of 1 million innocent people should be on the DNA database, which is exactly what the 2009 report stated? Can that possibly be right?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say from an advisory point of view that Members normally make one intervention at a time? They cannot suddenly pop up again when they remember a point that momentarily eluded them.
Counter-terrorism Review
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on establishing a wholly new and more balanced counter-terrorist regime that restores civil liberties lost under the previous Labour Government but that still gives police the power they need to keep us safe in this country?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend. I think that the vast majority of the public will see that the Government have done exactly what we said we would do when we came into power, which is to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties. That will be welcomed.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I think it is fair to say that the whole of Parliament thought that previous attempts to deal with the matter had succeeded and that people were disappointed when we discovered that that was not the case. I can confirm that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who deals with crime prevention, has been working very closely on the matter with the Metropolitan police, the Greater London authority, Westminster city council and, indeed, with the House authorities where relevant. Those parties are willing to work together to ensure that we keep Parliament square clear of encampments. The Bill does not deal with the problem of permanent encampments by restricting protests across the board; it bans the use of tents, other equipment and the unauthorised use of loudhailers in Parliament square.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Bill must go through the relevant parliamentary procedures and will probably not receive Royal Assent until the end of July. Is my right hon. Friend conscious of the fact that the royal wedding is in April and that there will be pressure to remove the encampment before that auspicious occasion?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Prime Minister made it clear at Prime Minister’s questions, and I have made it clear separately, that we need to ensure that we can clear Parliament square for the royal wedding on 29 April.
The Bill addresses another important area of law that is not currently working—the whole issue of how we apply universal jurisdiction, which is a key principle of international justice that enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted here, regardless of the state in which the offences were committed.
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. He can wave his arms around in a histrionic way, but the reality is that the previous Home Secretary said that he could not guarantee the individual decision of every chief constable of the 43 forces. However, he said that on the basis of a 12% reduction over four years, there would be no need for any reduction in police numbers. Under the coalition, the Police Federation estimates that 20,000 officers will be cut. We know that 1,100 officers will be cut in Birmingham and that 1,400 will be cut in Greater Manchester. The difference is that under our proposals there would have been no cuts to police numbers, and under the coalition proposals there will be cuts in every constituency and in every police force in the country. Those cuts will be made worse by the additional expenditure on the ridiculous and flawed proposals before us.
Michael Ellis
Am I correct to say that the shadow Home Secretary admitted that £1 billion of police budget cuts had to be made? If so, where would he make those cuts?
Ed Balls
If, rather than framing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman had listened to the previous one, he would have known the answer to his question and would not have had to bother asking it. HMIC said that a 12% reduction in the central Government grant over four years was deliverable without cuts to front-line policing. That advice has not been taken by the Government: they have gone not for 12% but for 20%, and it will be front-loaded on the first two years. The coalition policy will mean not 3,000 more police officers, but visible, front-line police officer cuts in police forces up and down the country. That is not the manifesto on which Government Members were elected, and they will be held to account.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Thus far in today’s debate, we have heard some interesting comments about a wide-ranging Bill that covers increasing licensing powers, banning legal highs and ending the disgraceful occupation and vandalism of Parliament square—a situation that it is hard to conceive would have been allowed to develop had people decided they wanted to set up a campsite on any other pavement or public square in the United Kingdom.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks. Is he concerned, as I am, that the provisions to deal with the Parliament square encampment will not receive Royal Assent until the end of July, which means that the royal wedding in April could still be subjected to the awful sight of this encampment in Parliament square?
Mr Burley
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend, who makes a good point about the timing of this legislation and the effect or otherwise it will have on the royal wedding. We all heard the Prime Minister say that he hoped the encampment would be gone by April, so I look forward to seeing how this progresses. I understand that my hon. Friend has some ideas of his own, and he will no doubt inform the House of them at a later date.
I would like to focus my remarks on the provisions around police and crime commissioners, the direct election of whom will, I believe, mark one of the most significant and positive changes to policing in our country. The Jack Daniel’ s adverts currently on the tube billboards read: “No one built a monument to a committee”—and if they were intended to refer to police authority committees, it is not hard to imagine why. They are possibly the least effective, least visible bureaucracies in the public sector that I can think of—visible to just 7% of the UK public. I believe that the bold changes in the Bill will finally end governance by committee and instead enable transparent and accountable policing in this country.
Opposition Members—not that there are many of them left in their places—have advanced a few arguments against police and crime commissioners today, and I would like to address, in order, the three main criticisms that have come out of the debate. First, the Opposition have argued that commissioners will cost more than police authorities; secondly, they have alleged that PCCs will interfere with the operational independence of chief constables; and, finally, they have said PCCs will do nothing to bring the police closer to the communities they serve. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary has said that this Bill
“goes against a 150 year tradition of keeping politics out of policing.”
The Opposition are mistaken on every single one of those counts, and I welcome the opportunity to explain why.
Let me first turn my attention to the issue of cost. Implementation costs, which are the price of shifting from police authorities to police and crime commissioners, are expected to be £5 million. The forecast cost of holding elections every four years is £50 million, but the running costs of the police and crime commissioners and their panels are predicted to be the same as for the current police authorities. Opposition Members would do well to remember that when Labour was in power, increased spending of any kind was slavishly hailed as a sign of automatic improvement in public services. They would be well advised to think carefully before voting against this investment, which, contrary to most of the Labour Government’s spending, will promote democracy, accountability and thrift.
I cannot recall many Labour Members arguing against the price of democracy when introducing elections for regional assemblies or indeed when it came to Lord Prescott’s proposals for regional government, which fortunately never made it through to the ballot box—although if they had, I am sure there would have been a price attached to them.
Where police authorities are invisible, police and crime commissioners will be high profile; where police authorities fly below the radar of public scrutiny, PCCs will be held accountable; and where police authorities are divided, wasteful, bureaucratic and inefficient, PCCs will be firm of purpose and leaner in expense. The reality is that police authorities are a costly collection of committees that are simply no longer fit for purpose. They cost £65 million and taxpayers fund all the generous expenses and allowances that individual members claim. In the light of the rising costs, we simply cannot ignore the value of bodies that fail to hold police properly to account and are invisible to the people they claim to represent.
Government Members need to counter the “scaremongering” myth peddled by some that election costs for these commissioners will come out of already stretched local authority budgets. This is unfounded and inaccurate: they will be funded by the Home Office budget and, as I said earlier, it is not the intention that PCCs should cost more than existing police authorities. In fact, it is quite the opposite: the intention is to give much better value for money.
Let me move on to the issue of independence. I agree with the Opposition’s stance on maintaining the importance of operational independence. For this reason, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice emphasise in September the need to maintain the operational independence of policing. He said that
“someone has to hold the police to account. In my view that should be an elected politician. We cannot have the police answering to no one. Therefore what we are discussing is simply the nature of that accountability; but politicians will be involved in one way or another.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 241WH.]
I believe that, far from interfering with operational independence and duty to act without restraint, I believe that this Bill will serve to improve it. Chief constables will have greater professional freedom to take operational decisions without fear or favour to meet the priorities set for them by their local community through their commissioner.
The Opposition’s charge of politicisation is, I am afraid, based on a fundamental misconception. The governance of policing is rightly, and by its nature, political. Deciding where to deploy limited resources is a political decision. Deciding whether to put officers in cars or on the beat is a political choice. Deciding whether they patrol in pairs or singly, on the same side of the street or the opposite side, is a political decision. As I mentioned earlier—I would have reiterated it later if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) had accepted my intervention—when Tony Blair summoned all 43 chief constables to Downing street for a summit on knife crime to put political pressure on them to do something about the explosion of that crime, that was political interference, to use the words of Labour Members, with the police. It was entirely legitimate, however, because Tony Blair as a politician democratically representing the people of this country wanted to put pressure on our police to do something about a problem. It is precisely the same principle in the Bill.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Lady not accept that many countries with similar legal systems to our own—Canada, for example—have established a similar system? In the Canadian context, the Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General has to give leave before the exercise of their universal jurisdiction power. Many other countries have similarly fettered the misuse of universal jurisdiction, which has often taken the course of party political or other politically biased purposes, and they have not had any difficulties in respect of the point the right hon. Lady is making. Where Lord Diplock and others refer to interference of the state, they did not apply it to this test.
Ann Clwyd
I hope the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch Mr Speaker’s eye, as he obviously has a speech in the making. I have experience of trying to get an indictment against some of the Iraqi war criminals in other countries such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Belgium. The closest we came to getting an indictment was in Belgium, but that was thwarted at the last moment because somebody brought an indictment against Sharon, and the Belgian Government changed the law. Sometimes the pressures can be very different, but we do not have time to go into the details of this now.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the speakers who have recently been addressing the House. I completely support and commend the Bill. I intend to refer in the few minutes available to a couple of its clauses, but it strikes me very much that the Bill as a whole tremendously empowers people in our country, drawing power away from the state. As such, it is to be highly commended, and I congratulate the Minister on that.
The handful of Opposition speakers—and it is a small number—who have spoken on the issue of universal jurisdiction and the safeguard in the Bill have confirmed why it is so necessary to improve the law on universal jurisdiction as it stands. This issue is not just about Israel: the Chinese Trade Minister has apparently been threatened with arrest because of the current provision, as has Henry Kissinger. There have been difficulties in Europe with Donald Rumsfeld’s freedom of movement, and I believe that White House staffers have been threatened with arrest in Spain because of the principle of universal jurisdiction. I am given to understand that even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has had a large number of petitions levied against him in the International Criminal Court, so this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom or Israel. It is an area that has needed reform for some considerable time.
The principle of amending the law on universal jurisdiction is in no way about stifling meritorious complaints. However, where jurisdiction is very wide, as it currently is in this country, it will tend to act as a magnet for complaints that are rooted in political vendettas, regardless of their merit. Universal jurisdiction has tended to mean that high-level consultations and meetings have been disrupted, and at times even cancelled. London has a long-established and important reputation as an effective venue for warring parties around the world—indeed, it has a cherished ability to act as such, serving as a diplomatic hot spot.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ironically, universal jurisdiction is getting in the way of diplomatic efforts to engender peace and in the way of peace talks and discussions, particularly in this international venue that is London. The Bill’s provisions are thus absolutely correct.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There have been literally dozens of examples in our recent history where London has been a centre for the negotiation and conclusion of important international agreements between warring factions, and we are in danger of losing that ability because universal jurisdiction has been misused, misapplied and inappropriately applied as a means of pursuing political vendettas. All that is required for the proposed changes is the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions—it is, incidentally, already required in certain other routine prosecutions—which would enable the system to withstand attempts to exploit the law for settling political scores. I very much welcome that provision.
Other important provisions are designed to deal with the encampment on Parliament square. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to see that encampment done away with; the Bill will achieve that, although it will be some months before Royal Assent is granted. Having looked at the existing laws, I take the view that law is already available on the criminal statute book, which could be applied to remove the encampment in time for the royal wedding in April.
Members will be fascinated to know that I have in mind the Vagrancy Act 1824. As Members will obviously know, section 4(2) of the 1824 Act says:
“Every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon, and not giving a good account of himself or herself… commits an offence.”
Members might be interested to know that this Act is not as obsolete as its antiquity would tend to imply. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that is used regularly around the country. I myself have prosecuted people for this offence in relatively recent times, in my former guise as a member of the Bar.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that he had been moved on under the terms of the Act, so I was grateful that he finished his sentence. I am delighted that he has found a potential wrinkle to help us to clear the encampment outside this building, which I think disgraces the motherhood of democracy. Does he agree that although we all share the commitment to freedom of speech and the right to protest, this is simply an eyesore that we have tolerated for far too long? The provisions on this issue are important and should be welcomed.
Michael Ellis
I very much agree. Of course we all recognise and cherish the right of people to protest in this country; we have an extremely liberal democracy that allows and, indeed, encourages it. It has however, reached a point of utter nonsense in Parliament square gardens.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 can be used to remove these people because they are either
“in the open air, or under a tent”,
and committing an offence under that provision. The maximum penalty for breaching it is a fine at level 1 of the standard scale, which is a maximum of £200. However, Members will be interested to know that if a person is prosecuted a second time for this offence, they can then be classified as “an incorrigible rogue”. The provision then allows the magistrates to remit the matter to the Crown court for sentence. Whereas on first prosecution the maximum sentence is a £200 fine, on second conviction for the same offence the maximum penalty would be up to 12 months’ imprisonment. That might well act as a disincentive to those encamping themselves on Parliament square, encouraging them to move on. The only requirements for prosecution are that the people concerned have been given an opportunity to take shelter elsewhere and have not availed themselves of that opportunity; that they have persistently ignored reasonably accessible alternatives; and that their remaining in situ would have offensive consequences or those consequences would appear likely to occur. I think that the House could well deal with the encampment by means of a prosecution before the Bill is given Royal Assent.
I have dealt with two clauses. I have only two minutes in which to cover several hundred more, but let me say a little about the proposal relating to police commissioners. It is a fundamentally democratic proposal, which I strongly support. Only a tiny number of people currently know that police authorities even exist.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that in this country we police with consent—the consent of the people—and that there is no better way of securing the consent of the people than a democratic election?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been quite strange to observe Opposition members baulking at the suggestion that police and crime commissioners should be elected. One would have expected them to support the democratic process.
Karl Turner
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposal politicises the police?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, summoned chief constables from around the country and put them under pressure to deal with knife crime. That was a form of politicisation of the police, and it is not something that police commissioners will be doing. Democratically electing police commissioners will, in fact, legitimise them.
I, for one, support all the provisions in the Bill, and commend it as an excellent and honourable measure that will increase the democratic process.
Public Order Policing
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had thought that perhaps in his many years in this House, he had mellowed slightly in his approach. I am very sorry that he spoke about violence but did not seek to condemn those who undertook violent protest, criminal damage and damage to individuals, including police officers.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commend the officers, particularly those of the royalty protection branch, for their admirable and extraordinary restraint when dealing with the disgraceful attack on the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and recognise that the vast majority of protection officers in other countries around the world might well have resorted to deadly force in similar circumstances?
Mrs May
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the restraint shown by the royal protection officers, as did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday morning in his radio interview. It was important that the officers concentrated on getting His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Cornwall to their venue, which they did admirably and in a short space of time. They did indeed respond with restraint.
Controlling Migration
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on this statement. The shadow Home Secretary has apparently admitted in the media that the Labour party, when in government, made a mistake in 2004 by not applying transitional controls to enlargement of the European Union then.
Michael Ellis
I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that such transitional controls will be applied to any further enlargements of the European Union?
Identity Documents Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
To continue the example of the house sale, an individual buying a house despite knowing that there is something wrong with it, such as subsidence, is the same as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in respect of his ID card.
Julie Hilling
Hon. Members on both sides have been extremely rude to constituents of mine who have written to me about how they bought an ID card in good faith. I assume that a lot of Members in the Chamber today were not part of the pilot programme in which constituents were able to buy ID cards. Had they been, perhaps they would also be speaking up on behalf of those constituents who bought ID cards but will not now get a refund. Those who have written to me are mainly pensioners and on a low income. They decided that they were only going to be travelling as far as Europe and that therefore an ID card was a good value alternative to paying the full amount for a full passport. These people are taxpayers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
In relation to the police and localism, we are ensuring that there is a more direct link between local people and policing in their community through the introduction of the ability for them to elect a directly accountable police and crime commissioner whose responsibility it will be to ensure that local policing delivers what local people want. We will also ensure that, through neighbourhood meetings and crime maps, people are aware of what is going on in their community and are able to hold the police directly accountable for what is happening in it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
T5. Last week on ITV a programme about community payback showed offenders on community payback smoking cannabis and not being properly supervised. How can we be sure that community payback means exactly that?
Nick Herbert
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who saw that programme will have been angered, as I was, by the scenes depicted where offenders were, frankly, sticking two fingers up at the criminal justice system and smoking cannabis. They were not being properly supervised. That is being investigated, and we must have confidence that these community sentences are administered rigorously.