Govia Thameslink Franchise

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The professor has helped us, and that is very useful.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Some 2,400 trains have been cancelled at Hassocks, in my constituency, since the introduction of the new timetable. The interim timetable this week seems to have resulted in fewer cancellations, so it is an improvement, but trains are still being delayed. What it has not done is to restore the direct service from Hassocks to Clapham Junction, and Hassocks is unique among commuting stations in no longer having such a service. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at the matter again and ask GTR to review that omission, with a view to putting it right in future timetable changes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is good to see the Rainbow flag flying over the Foreign Office in Pride week. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she and the Government will remain fully committed to protecting LGBT rights, both at home and abroad, where there is work still to do?

[Mr Speaker]

At least as importantly, the Rainbow flag will be flying over the House.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Given that the extent of fibre to premises is so low in this country at only 1%—we are in danger of falling behind other countries in future—should not the regulator be confident in looking at the monopoly and in breaking it up where necessary to encourage more investment and competition? Does not BT’s monopoly with Openreach now need attention?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The intervention was too long. A lot of Members wish to speak in the debate. It is very selfish behaviour.

Water Cannon

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Nick Herbert when he has finished consulting his mobile phone.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary will have taken this decision with great care. I therefore regret to say that I, too, have grave concerns about it. Does it not directly contradict the statement of the Prime Minister during the London riots of 2011 that water cannon would not be taken off the table and that indeed they could be made available within 24 hours? The Home Secretary has not been directly responsible for policing in the capital for 15 years. The elected Mayor has responsibility in that regard and the senior operational commander in London has made it quite clear that he supports the use of water cannon. Surely a riot is a riot whether it is in Northern Ireland or on the streets of London and it is hard to see why it should be dealt with differently. Just this week, water cannon have been used in the Province.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I appeal to remaining colleagues wishing to speak, of whom there are seven, to factor into their thinking that we have 21 minutes left? It is up to colleagues, but that would be in the spirit of equality.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I will endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker.

Lords amendment 53, on freedom of expression, is important. It has been the mission of many of us to ensure that this important step forward on equality also protects religious freedom. In making it clear that mere criticism of same-sex marriage is not an offence, the amendment surely deals with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the “chilling” factor that such legislation may engender. I must say to him that it also behoves those who call for freedom of speech to ensure that the words they choose are temperate and reasonable. Words may not and should not become a matter for criminal law. I am with my hon. Friend on that, including on the defence of free speech in relation to the offence of incitement of hatred against homosexual people. However, when phrases such as “aggressive homosexuals”—the phrase my hon. Friend used on Second Reading—are used, they take freedom of expression to an unreasonable extent and do cause offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend has not listened to a word I have said. I have just said that nobody should be prosecuted for words that are merely offensive, but that does not absolve those who use those words of causing that offence. If my hon. Friend and others are calling for freedom of expression and not to be prosecuted—as they should not be—for merely criticising activity or conduct, they have a responsibility to use words carefully that do not cause grave offence to a considerable section of the community. It would be considered intolerable to talk of aggressive blacks or aggressive Jews. Perhaps even my hon. Friend would not consider it acceptable to do that, but he did consider it acceptable to use the phrase “aggressive homosexuals”. I regret that, and that is why I find it so difficult to accept what he says about the importance of the chilling factor.

The second group of amendments to which I shall refer relates to those applying to clause 9. On Lords amendment 4 on the conversion of civil partnerships into marriage, it has surely been a fundamental proposition of the Bill that the status of civil partnerships is no longer considered adequate to confer equality on gay people.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was just checking that I had not misheard the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever his temptation to dilate on Lords amendment 4 he must resist it, because that is in the second group that we have not reached. He should stick to the first group, and I am sure he has got plenty to say on that.

[Nick Herbert]

I am very happy to stick to the first group, Mr Speaker.

I hope that Lords amendments 10, 15, 26, 27 and 54, relating to humanist weddings, are in that group. They make provision to allow the dislocation of weddings from premises, to which further consideration will be given. I was at such a wedding in the United States a few weeks ago, and at such weddings it is common to read words that were delivered by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts 10 years ago and which ring true today:

“Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. Without the right to marry one is excluded from the full range of human experience”.

In words that get to the kernel of the matter and these amendments, the Court continued:

“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.... The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.... For no rational reason the marriage laws…discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.”

That surely is the point. It is no longer considered acceptable by a majority of the public, the House of Commons and the other place.

The Bill was not bulldozed through; it was voted through by considerable majorities in both Houses, and it reflects a fundamental change of attitude for the better in our society. The Bill will do no harm to those not affected and it will protect those who do not wish to join in, but, in recognising the place of gay people in our society, it will do a great deal of good for people who love each other and want to express a permanent commitment to each other. For that reason, I will be proud to have been a Member of the House of Commons when it passed the Bill and to see it—I hope—given Royal Assent within a matter of days.

Same-sex Marriage in Churches

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a pity that the House did not hear about the updated policy first, but it is nevertheless reassuring to know, in consequence of what the right hon. Lady has said, that the House will hear about it twice. That is very welcome.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response. Does she agree that, while civil partnerships were an incredibly important step forward for gay people, they are not marriages; that gay people will not feel that they are fully accepted in society while they are denied access to what is one of our most important institutions; and that that is the reason for proceeding with this reform? Will she confirm that she will press ahead with it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I mentioned the amount of officer time —the equivalent of more than 2,000 officers—that we have effectively released for front-line duties. For instance, we are returning charging decisions to the police, scrapping the national requirement for the stop-and-account form, reducing the burden of the stop-and-search procedures, employing new technology to ensure that police officers can give evidence from their police stations rather than having to go to court, and championing a simplified crime-recording process. I could go on, but the list is an impressive one and reflects our determination to free up officer time so that they can do the job we want them to do, which is to fight crime.

[Mr Speaker]

There is plenty of scope there for an Adjournment debate, I think.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman still had two thirds of his important question to go. I apologise for almost stopping him in his tracks, but I should know that nothing can stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks.

[Nick Herbert]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that matter. Such a payment is permissible under the current law. Tom Winsor has made recommendations in his independent review relating to the matter, which we are looking at carefully. I can understand that the people of north Yorkshire, and indeed more widely, would be concerned about this payment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and I have visited those responsible for running the scheme in Manchester as he knows—indeed, I think it was at his instigation. It is important that we evaluate these projects properly, and our general position is that we want to have more punitive community sentences, which are effective and combine rehabilitation with a punitive element. If possible, we want such schemes to be mainstreamed so that they can be taken beyond their pilots.

[Mr Speaker]

With reference to alternative to custody projects, Mr Paul Maynard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think anybody has ever had any trouble hearing the hon. Member for Colchester, even some miles away.

[Nick Herbert]

As my hon. Friend knows, the MOD police are not the responsibility of the Home Office; they are the responsibility of the MOD. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will take this question together with question 10 on the Order Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am mistaken, I shall be happy to acknowledge it, but I thought that the Minister wished to group this question with questions 9 and 18.

[Nick Herbert]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to group it with question 18 as well, if that is acceptable. [Hon. Members: “And 9, not 10.”] I said 10, then I realised that it has been moved to 9 because of a withdrawal. I apologise.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 6, Government motions to disagree, Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu, amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu and amendment (ii) to Government amendment (b) in lieu.

[Nick Herbert]

This Government are determined to swap bureaucratic control of the police for local democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners. In the past there has been too much central interference with decisions that should have been taken locally and by professionals, yet too often the centre has been weak where it needed to be strong, such as in ensuring the fight against serious and organised crime or better co-ordination between forces. Our aim is to reverse this position, giving greater freedom to professionals to do their job and sweeping away central interference and bureaucracy, while refocusing the Home Office on key priorities and threats.

But we cannot just take away central direction and leave the police to get on with it. Like any public service, the police must answer to someone. Politicians do not and should not run the police, but they should and they must hold the police to account on behalf of the public whom the police serve. Officers must be accountable for their actions and forces must be accountable for their performance. Both parties in the coalition were committed in their manifestos at the last election, in differing ways, to enhancing the democratic accountability of policing. The coalition agreement pledged the introduction of directly elected individuals, subject to strict checks and balances, by locally elected representatives.

The Bill seeks to establish clear and democratically accountable leadership for police governance, but amendments in another place would remove those provisions. The Lords amendments do not try to increase the local accountability of the police. They do not even try to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in place. The amendments simply say that the status quo should be preserved and that the chair of a police authority should be called a police and crime commissioner. This rebranding of the status quo will not suffice.

The whole purpose of the Government’s reform and its strength is that local councillors will still be involved in the governance of policing, but an elected individual, with a mandate from the people, will take the executive decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful. We have got it.

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome the steps being taken by Warwickshire police in this area and I would happily visit the force to look at what it is doing. We want to make sure that new technology is used in that way by police forces. We have inherited the problem that there is still multiple keying of data into different systems by police officers, as I heard this morning for myself, which is wasting their time. We still have 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 forces, which we have to converge and we have a programme to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

The Labour party simply cannot stand the fact that the Mayor of London has said that he will enter the next mayoral election with more police officers than he inherited. He has made that pledge and is protecting safer neighbourhood teams. Of course there are sensible arrangements whereby some sergeants are being shared, but the number of officers in safer neighbourhood teams is being protected. It is possible, as the Mayor has shown, alongside the leadership of the Met, to protect front-line policing while having to deliver significant savings. The hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got the general gist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I visited Cheshire police a few weeks ago and was impressed by what they are doing to drive savings and, in particular, by a pilot scheme that they are running in Runcorn, which returns discretion to police officers and improves the service to the public. In the pilot, when police officers are dealing with an offence, they are asked to look at the causes of that offence—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I think we will take that as a yes and perhaps make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

We are strongly in favour of police forces providing face-to-face contact in all sorts of innovative ways. However, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply will not accept responsibility for bequeathing to the country the deficit that we now have to deal with, and which means that we have to make savings—police forces have to make those savings, too, and protect the front line at the same time.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Mike Freer.

Policing and Crime

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Those forces talk about a single dog unit. Does the right hon. Lady think they are just cutting the number—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must not try to drown out the Minister of State. He must be heard. If he wants to give way, he will, but if not, he must continue.

[Nick Herbert]

With only a few minutes to go, I will not give way.

The Labour party does not wish to admit to police officers and the public that it, too, would be cutting budgets, staff and police pay. In her speech, the right hon. Lady criticised a police force that was having to cut its overtime bill. What does she think a cut in overtime is if not a cut in police pay? Frankly, the Opposition’s position is one of nothing more than shameless opportunism. Government Members know exactly what we have to do.

Incredibly, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the right hon. Lady said, “We have had this debate before”. Yes we have, and she has called it before, and several times she has come to the Dispatch Box and repeated her constant claim about police cuts, but in all her speeches what has she actually said about policing policy? What has she said on any of these issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is the responsibility of the Member on his or her feet to decide whether, and if so when, to allow an intervention.

[Nick Herbert]

That time-wasting intervention has just shown exactly why it is not necessary or proper to give way to the right hon. Lady.

The Labour party, and particularly the shadow Home Secretary, have absolutely no credibility on policing policy, because they have nothing to say about it. What is her position on the Winsor reform proposal that police officers should be paid more for working antisocial hours? Is she in favour of or against that? She will not say. What is her policy on the Winsor proposal that police officers should be rewarded for the skills they show? She does not know, she has not said, and she will not say, because the Opposition have no credible policy on policing issues. What has she said about bureaucracy? Absolutely nothing at all. We know that Labour created it, and we are determined to sweep it away.

The Government are determined to fight crime, and we are determined to support the police. We are determined to give the police and others new powers to fight antisocial behaviour. We will create a new national crime agency to strengthen the fight against serious crime. We will cut targets and trust professionals by giving them the freedom to do their job. We will sweep away the bureaucracy that Labour imposed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

On point after point, Labour Members get it wrong. They say that the constituencies—

Hon. Members: Give way!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.

[Nick Herbert]

Labour Members say that the constituencies will be too big, yet the largest constituency outside London will have 2.5 million electors, and the capital has more than 5.5 million. Londoners like the clear line of accountability that the Mayor provides. The Opposition run scare stories about extremists being elected. Did it happen in London? No. Fortunately, Ken Livingstone was replaced by Boris Johnson.

At the heart of objections to the Bill lies a deeply worrying philosophy. It is the view that one cannot trust the people. Heaven forfend that they might elect someone who represents their views. Those are the same disreputable arguments that were mounted against enfranchising the general public and women. The same attitude pervades opposition to the Bill—that one cannot trust the electorate. It is as undemocratic as it is elitist to argue that the public should have no say, and that our public services would be run so much better by people who are unaccountable and who know better than them.

Policing is a monopoly service and people cannot choose their force. This public service has to answer to someone. Is it to be bureaucratic accountability to Whitehall or local accountability to the people? We believe in trusting people and returning power and responsibility to communities. We think that local people should have a say over how their area is policed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we think that local people should have power so that they can do something when problem drinking blights their town and city centres. We are determined to rebuild the link between the people and the police forces who serve them. That is why these reforms are right for the people, right for the police and right for the times. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

The number of police officers is not set by central Government, but we believe that forces can make savings to ensure that visible and available policing is secured for the public.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was slightly out of breath or a bit uncertain in coming to the Dispatch Box, but I believe that he is seeking to group the question with Question 8.

[Nick Herbert]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will take Questions 7 and 8 together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Opposition Members’ hearing is playing tricks with them. They did not hear what they thought they heard.

[Nick Herbert]

Mr Speaker, I am in very good company today.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said that these were cuts to police staff. In all, there are more than 6,000 members of staff in Northumbria police force, including police officers, and I repeat that our determination is to do everything we can to support forces in making savings to the back office, in order to protect the front line and the visible and available policing that the public value.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The previous Government would not give any guarantee on police officer numbers. Indeed, in many forces police officer numbers were already falling when this Government came to power. The test is about what those police officers are doing, and whether they are visible and available to the public. We will accept no lectures from the Opposition, who have put this country in the position of having to cut police officer funding. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not quite sure what Members had for either breakfast or lunch, but I think I had better steer clear of both.

Crime and Policing

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman says that he would have protected police spending. So which budget would he have cut more deeply? Would it have been health? Would it have been defence? Of course Labour Members will not tell us, but we do know that HMIC has said that £1 billion a year—12% of the budget— could have been saved through better and wiser spending. We will not know the availability of resources until the outcome of the spending review on 20 October, but we are determined to protect front-line services.

When he was Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman would not guarantee police numbers. Perhaps that is not surprising, because we know that police numbers across the country were starting to fall on his watch. He knew that he could not guarantee the funding, and he knew what was around the corner.

The second part of the shadow Home Secretary’s contention was that we should make no attempt to protect civil liberties. His entire attack was based on what we planned to do in relation to the restoration of those liberties. The Labour party’s position is straightforward: the DNA that is taken from innocent people should be retained. The shadow Home Secretary based that on the argument that crimes would be solved, so why should he stop there? If the end justifies the means, why not take DNA from everyone? If the Labour party is suggesting that all people are potential criminals, they should believe that that would deal with crime. In fact, the end does not justify the means. Labour, the party that proposed 90 days’ detention without trial, still does not understand that if we undermine liberty and erode public confidence in law enforcement—if we take away freedom—we do not make people safer at all.

The third part of the right hon. Gentleman’s contention was that we should not accept the need for reform of policing. The Government believe that we must replace the bureaucratic accountability and top-down targets of which the last Government were so fond with democratic accountability, rebuild the bridge between the police and the public and reduce Home Office interference, so that we can give local people a real say over policing in their areas.

Labour Members raised various spectres. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of the risk of politicians being in charge of police forces. Who else should be in charge of police forces, other than elected people? Police forces must answer to someone, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it might be right and proper for them to answer to democratically elected people. The shadow Home Secretary raised the spectre of extremism. That is a constant cry from the Labour party. The British national party won just 2% of the vote in the last election, but it suits Labour’s argument to suggest that extremists will be elected. We on this side of the House say, “Let us trust the people when it comes to who will be elected to these positions.” The people will decide who should represent them and hold the police to account.

We are determined that local authorities will still have a role on police and crime panels, and are determined to press ahead with this reform. The shadow Home Secretary said that the reform simply was not necessary. Why? Why, in 2003, did the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), propose directly elected police authorities?

“For many people”,

the Labour Government said then,

“the question of who is responsible for what in terms of keeping communities safe is simply unclear. We must rectify this. Strong, transparent accountability is vital for community confidence.”

In 2008 the Labour Government made the same proposal for introducing a form of direct elections into the governance of policing. The then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said:

“We are…committed to introducing a stronger link between those responsible for delivering policing and the public they serve. We will legislate to reform police authorities, making them more democratic and more effective in responding to the needs of the local community.”

Do Opposition Members think these arguments have changed? If they were right in 2003 and 2008, why are they not right now? Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) simultaneously said we should reject further restructuring—his motion says that—and proposed a third reform. He suggested just a few hours ago at the Dispatch Box that we should have directly elected police authority chairs. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, “Three strikes and you’re out. You’ve reneged on your promise to reform police authorities twice; why should we believe your latest back-of-the-envelope proposal to do it again?”

We, however, are determined to drive forward with our programme of reform, and it is reform that does not end at the greater accountability of local police forces. It includes measures to deal with serious and organised crime, the creation of a national crime agency, and placing police forces under strong duties to collaborate so they can cut costs and tackle crimes that cross force borders. It also includes a serious programme to tackle bureaucracy and to give the public more information through crime mapping and information about crime that is really happening in their streets—not statistics, which, frankly, the public no longer believe. It includes, too, proposals to reform the pay and conditions of police officers, and we start from the position, as we do across the public services, that we trust the professionals. That is why we want to return charging decisions to police officers, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).

The reforms move beyond policing, too. There are reforms of the licensing laws to deal with the problem of 24-hour drinking and reforms to the toolkit of antisocial behaviour measures to ensure the police and local authorities have the ability to deal with that problem.

We do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s rose-tinted view of the years of the last Government. We do not accept what he described as the “glorious year of Johnson”. Where did that glorious year end up? It ended up with 10,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour every day, 100 serious knife crimes every day, 26,000 victims of crime every day and 1 million victims of violent crime a year. That is not a glorious record. Five million to 10 million crimes a year is not a glorious record; that is not a record about which the Labour party should be remotely complacent, yet Labour Members rise from the Opposition Benches and suggest nothing more needs to be done to deal with crime other than the ineffective remedies they proposed before.

What did the Labour Government spend their time doing? They spent it wasting money by amalgamating forces, creating bureaucracy with reams of guidance, introducing a policing pledge and spending £6 million a year on doing so, and, of course, creating new laws: 50 Acts of Parliament and 3,000 new offences, and not just offences that would help deal with crime. After all, did these offences make people safer? No, they did not. With their new laws, the Labour Government introduced 24-hour drinking and the so-called café culture, and they downgraded cannabis. They also released 80,000 offenders early under their end-of-custody licence scheme, which, of course, they scrapped just before the election was called. Above all, they spent and wasted industrial sums. They are in double denial: they created the deficit and they are failing to deal with it. We say that we cannot go on like this, spending more than three times the entire budget of the criminal justice system—that of the police, courts and probation service—on debt interest every year. We are determined to deal with the deficit and it is our responsibility to do so. That is the difference between the two sides—we are driving radical reform and they are stuck in the past.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

What is clear is that the Opposition still have not faced up to their responsibility for bequeathing us the fiscal deficit. They left us with £44 billion of unspecified spending cuts. The shadow Home Secretary told “The Daily Politics” show on 20 July, in debate with me, that they would have cut by £1 billion, by 12%. But Labour voted against a spending cut of 0.5%. It demonstrates that it—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister. “The Daily Politics” is a fascinating programme, but I do not want to hear about the dilations of Opposition spokesmen on it, because the purpose of Question Time is to hear about the policies of the Government.

Police Grant Report

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I say, first, that I hope the hon. Lady will now have an opportunity to breathe, which would be a very healthy thing; and secondly, that I encourage Members who intervene to bear in mind that the total duration of the debate is three hours?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Of course there are greater opportunities for the 43 forces to share services and to procure collectively. I will say more about that later, if she will forgive me.

I promised, perhaps unwisely, to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have had no indication of that grouping. There is a practice now developing of this happening spontaneously. It really will not do. We shall see how it goes today. I call the Minister.

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I should say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not recognise those figures. Our policy is that we want to do everything possible to enable chief constables to prioritise the front line and maintain police officers out in the neighbourhoods, where the public want to see them. To do that, we must ensure that we reduce bureaucracy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No blame is imputed to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). It is simply that the grouping of his question with Question 19 was not something of which I had notice, and it is not a grouping to which I would ordinarily agree, for reasons of progress down the Order Paper.