Prevent Strategy
Tom Brake Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is correct to say that it is important to ensure that individuals are able to tackle this perverse ideology, and part of Prevent’s work with individuals will be precisely about that—about enabling people to understand the perversion of the ideology.
In relation to dealing with the wider aspects of community participation and cohesion, however, including looking at the involvement in society more generally, as we would like, of women from particular communities who are often not able or encouraged to do so, the Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at that issue in the integration strategy that it is developing.
We refer to RICU, which was set up under the last Government, in the strategy. I fully accept the right hon. Lady’s point about communication, which is extremely important; that is why we are looking at the role that RICU plays in it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that a clear divide must exist between the measures designed to tackle violent extremism and those designed to promote community cohesion, that funding must be denied to organisations that do not support our basic values in relation to respect for women and minorities, and that the most effective way to confront radical non-violent groups is to tackle their beliefs in open debate?
Mrs May
I certainly agree that we need to challenge the ideology. I also agree that the means by which we deal with violent extremism, or people who are vulnerable to radicalisation towards violent extremism, need to be separated from the wider task of community cohesion and working towards greater participation in society. In the past, people came to look with some concern at what was being done in the name of Prevent because it was trying to mix up those two aspects of work. It is important that we separate out the community cohesion work, which is overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
As I said earlier, control orders are not ideal, and ideally we would not need them, but we do. We need to continue with control orders and this kind of protection.
I will set out my view of the Bill’s measures and where we think greater scrutiny is needed, and highlight the reduction in safeguards and checks and balances that the Home Secretary is introducing, because the point is not simply that she is weakening the powers of the police and security forces in certain areas, but that she is weakening the checks and balances, and in particular the parliamentary checks and balances, on the system that is in place. Those parliamentary checks and balances are extremely important for safeguarding our civil liberties, as well as for protecting national security.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise in search of some clarity on where the right hon. Lady stands. She seems to be saying on the one hand that TPIMs are simply recreating what existed under control orders, but on the other hand that what the Government are doing is making the situation much more dangerous, but it cannot be both.
Yvette Cooper
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens more closely to what I am saying. The overall approach of the Government’s Bill, which he should read, is to reinstate most of the elements of control orders. I agree however—and I have said this clearly—that the Home Secretary is changing control orders in a series of ways, and I will address them shortly as they are significant. Some of them are justified, but others create risks, and changes will need to be made.
Overall, the Government should admit what they are doing. This is a cut-and-paste job. In place of control orders, all we have is “son of control orders”. It is irresponsible to maintain this pretence. That is not being straight with Parliament or the public on an issue of grave importance: how we safeguard our national security and our civil liberties. Debates on matters such as these should be open, transparent and considered, not fudged, fraudulent and confused. This is an area where Governments need to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, but we do not achieve that by playing these kinds of political games.
This is also a very strange use of parliamentary time. There are some limited and specific differences between control orders and “son of control orders” that I am not concerned about, but, frankly, the Home Secretary could have achieved them with about four clauses amending the 2005 Act which could have been debated as part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. She could have covered the issues of relocation, the length of the curfew and access to phones through amendments to an existing Act. She did not need an entirely new piece of legislation to abolish control orders and then reintroduce them under another name.
Why are we not doing that? Why do we have an entire additional Bill with 27 more clauses, all redrafted, doing the same thing? Why are we here today? The answer is because the Home Secretary has lost yet another battle with her Cabinet colleagues on her policy areas, so she is forced to go through this charade of entirely new legislation; and because, once again, the Government are putting politics before good policy.
As I have made clear, some of the changes to the control orders are limited. We can support some of them, but some are very troubling. The first change is to move the burden of proof from “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable belief”. We understand that the view of the experts is that none of the control orders that have been upheld would have failed that higher standard, and that this will not make a significant difference to the serious cases they worry about. We believe it is right to follow the evidence, and we are happy to support this change on that basis.
The second change is to alter the wording in respect of the hours. That is a bit of a joke. In place of curfews, we have a reference to overnight residence requirements, but what is the difference? The online “Oxford English Dictionary” definition of a curfew is
“a regulation requiring people to remain indoors during specified hours, typically at night.”
It is, therefore, a requirement to stay in one’s residence overnight, or, as one might say, an overnight residence requirement. The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of the fact that people would be restricted for fewer hours under TPIMs than under control orders, but that is not what the Bill actually says. In fact, there is no specified limit on the number of hours someone has to stay at home. All the Bill says is “overnight”.
Let us turn again to the OED for illumination about what that should ordinarily mean. Overnight means
“for the duration of a night”,
and night means
“the period from sunset to sunrise.”
So does the Home Secretary intend TPIMs to apply for the hours of darkness? Does she want them to be longer in winter than in summer, and longer in the north than in the south? Does she want them potentially to be used to prevent evening activities and meetings, or only to require people to sleep in their own beds? If she does not think TPIMs should be used to prevent evening meetings or people going out after dark when surveillance is much more difficult, is she confident that this will not increase the risks to the public, or make it harder for the security services and police to do their jobs?
I asked the Home Secretary this during her speech, but how does this fit with her own decisions? A number of the 14 orders she has made or renewed since she took office include curfews, several of more than 12 hours. A recent one runs from 5 pm to 9 am—it is summer, so does that count as “overnight”? She can refuse to answer all these questions, but if she does not answer them, the courts will. Her definition just invites legal challenge or judicial review and, for the sake of the Government’s legal bill alone, she should tighten it up.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary has replaced an inexhaustive list of restrictions with an exhaustive list to choose from. We will ask in Committee whether or not any case, historical or current, would have been affected by this change. Fourthly, she and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that the new Bill would prevent relocation. This matter does raise some significant concerns. Preventing people from entering an entire area, or requiring them to live somewhere else, is, in general, deeply undesirable. However, many experts have concluded that in certain limited circumstances it is extremely important and can be justified. Indeed, police officers have told me that relocation can, in some exceptional circumstances, be the most effective way to disrupt terrorist activity and break someone out of a network of dangerous contacts and associations.
The Home Secretary must think that too, because in February she imposed a control order on a suspect that banned them from entering London and less than one month ago her lawyers defended those restrictions in the High Court. I have gone through the Court papers for this case, which, like so many, is extremely serious. The individual on the order, who is known as CD, was suspected of planning forthcoming attacks using firearms in London. The Court was told that he was attending regular meetings with associates in this city to plan an attack and had previously travelled to Syria for what was alleged to be extremist training. The assessment of the security services and the Home Secretary was that it was necessary to relocate CD outside Greater London to prevent him from having these meetings and co-ordinating an attack—that is what they argued in Court just last month. The High Court judge concluded that the relocation obligation is
“a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist-related attack.”
All this happened just last month, so the House needs to consider why we are seeking to introduce a change to control orders that would remove a function that the Home Secretary believed, and the High Court agreed, was needed for national security only one month ago?
Fifthly, the Home Secretary is restricting individual TPIMs to two years. Control orders could be renewed repeatedly, and she has not explained what will happen to the two people currently on control orders for more than two years once this Bill comes into force. Will they transfer to TPIMs or will the Home Secretary have to apply to the courts all over again? Sixthly, she is permitting access to phones and computers. She has assured the House that that will be monitored, but we will seek assurances from the monitoring agencies as to whether sufficient safeguards are in place and whether they have the resources to manage the continued monitoring that will be involved.
A wider question is being raised because these changes—the potentially reduced hours for curfews; a potentially narrower list of restrictions; more association with others who may be causing trouble; and the greater use of phone and internet—all require greater surveillance and resources to fill the gap. The Home Secretary has refused to confirm a figure, but the figure of £20 million has been routinely used in the newspapers and, presumably, has been briefed from her Department. Yet the overall police budget is being cut by £2 billion, the police counter-terrorism budget is still being cut in real terms and experienced counter-terrorism officers are being laid off through the A19 process.
I am concerned that the Home Secretary knows that there are troubling gaps in her plans. She has said that
“in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary…So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement…We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 309.]
What “additional measures” are these, given that control orders are pretty far-reaching? Does this mean that she knows already that there is a potential gap in security as a result of the new TPIMs? The Home Secretary has said she would consult the Opposition about these plans, but she has not yet done so. If new emergency legislation is needed to fill the gaps her own Bill creates, Parliament needs to know about this before we get to the evidence and Committee stage; otherwise we will be debating the Bill under false pretences, legislating only to legislate again.
This Bill is a con, recreating most of control orders while pretending not to do so, and it is risky, as some elements and changes water down the protection for national security, but there is a third problem: the Bill also reduces, rather than increases, parliamentary checks and balances on the Home Secretary. As I have said, the right approach to take to ensure that we protect civil liberties and national security together is to support strong powers for the police and security services to act in difficult circumstances, and to make sure that there are strong checks and balances to prevent abuse.
The current checks and balances on control orders are both judicial and parliamentary: the High Court has to approve every control order but Parliament has to give its approval every year for the control order regime to remain in place. Democratically elected MPs have to decide every year whether the terrorism threat remains sufficiently severe, whether anyone has come up with a better alternative and whether to allow the Home Secretary to continue to use these exceptional powers. That is an important parliamentary check on the exercise of Executive power which should continue to be unusual, yet she is removing it in this Bill. The power of the Home Secretary to impose TPIMs under this Bill is not a temporary one—it is permanent. TPIMs do not have to be renewed annually, as control orders do, and the TPIMs regime does not have to be renewed annually, as the control order regime does. This is therefore a serious downgrading of parliamentary oversight of a regime which is always supposed to be exceptional. She will know that serious concerns have been raised about this by Liberty, Justice and others, who say that far from representing a positive innovation, the TPIMs regime is, in one crucial respect, more offensive than the system it is designed to replace.
The Home Secretary is now in the astonishing situation of pleasing no one. She has a Bill that fudges the issue and does not fundamentally change the control order regime in the way that she and others promised its critics. However, it does water down some measures, worrying those who monitor national security, and it waters down the checks and balances that allow Parliament to prevent abuse, and that should worry this House.
The Opposition have very serious reservations about this Bill. Where possible, we want to support the Government on counter-terrorism. That is made more difficult when neither we nor the Intelligence and Security Committee have access to more detail about the risks in individual cases that would allow us to be reassured that the Home Secretary’s judgments are right. We believe that it would have been better not to introduce this Bill at all. We believe that it is, in the main, unnecessary, that it includes elements that take risks and that it reduces accountability to Parliament. Now that the Government have introduced it, we believe that it needs a serious rethink in Committee. We will not vote against Second Reading tonight, but we will expect greater transparency on these measures, more answers to the questions we have posed and significant changes to be made to the Bill to reassure us about our concerns. Counter-terrorism is too important for us to take risks for the sake of political expediency. The Home Secretary should forget deals done to save face for the Deputy Prime Minister—it is beyond saving—and she should ignore the demands for short-term headlines from the Prime Minister, as in the longer term she has to carry the can.
Paul Goggins
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that an international terrorist is sitting there thinking, “Thank goodness they have given me the internet so I can reveal all my contacts and conspiracies,” he is quite naive. We are talking about highly sophisticated people, and I am concerned that the provisions in paragraph 7(3) are not as sophisticated as they need to be to deal with the threat.
Paul Goggins
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was saying that international terrorists would rush off and use it and reveal all their sources and contacts to the authorities monitoring the measure. I shall make the point again: I do not think that the provisions as set out reflect the sophistication with which international terrorists operate.
My third difficulty relates not to the Bill but to a wider issue that is significant to the powers in the Bill—the whole business of rules on the disclosure of evidence. I welcome the fact that under the Bill there will still be closed hearings which can continue as before under control orders. That is needed, because if a judge is going to review the material or hear an appeal from a particular individual, he must consider the information available to the Home Secretary when she made the initial application. If some, if not all, of that information has to be protected, that must be done in a closed hearing. Special advocates will still be needed. The gist of the case must be provided to the individual.
As we recognise, however, the AF judgment makes it increasingly difficult to protect what in the interests of public safety and national security must remain secret information. That issue caused problems for the previous Government, and it has caused problems for this Government. It has ramifications for our relations with international partners with whom we share important information and intelligence. I applaud the fact that the Government are seeking to address that problem and deal with it in the Green Paper. May I tell all Front Benchers that we should do everything we can to resolve the issue, because if we do not do so the TPIM system will simply not work, as there will be an ever stronger demand that information that should remain secret is revealed in open court to the individual concerned? It is important that we resolve that issue so that we know what can be disclosed and what can be protected.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who drew on his experience and made some sensible contributions to the debate. I diverge from his view, however, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made about communications. The point about allowing people to have access to mobile phones, the internet or fixed lines is that there are indeed some intelligent potential or actual terrorists, but equally there are some rather stupid terrorists who may use those facilities and make the sort of connections that would facilitate a prosecution. That might be one of the purposes of making communications available to them.
The Bill is welcome. It starts to tackle some of the grossest abuses of human rights that existed under the control order system, but I would like it to go further. For instance, on prosecutions, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to the fact that there would be additional resources for covert surveillance and intelligence. My understanding is that that will be used to secure prosecutions, which is welcome. More could be done to secure prosecutions, and we may want to return to that at a later date. I am pleased that the Government are not afraid of improving Bills where and when that is necessary.
I do not agree with Liberty’s contention that the Bill is worse than the control order system that is currently in place. It is not; it is more targeted. Liberty’s argument seems to be centred on the fact that although control orders are continually on the political table because of the sunset clause that calls for an annual review and the associated parliamentary oversight, the effect of the Bill would be permanent. That is true. However, control orders have been debated annually and renewed year after year, whereas TPIMs are limited to a maximum of two years, following an initial period of one year.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East argued that the Government should allow TPIMs to go beyond a two-year period. My understanding of one of the arguments deployed in favour of control orders is their ability to disrupt. One would expect that after a two-year period of a lack of communication or of controlled communication, the disruptive nature of control orders would have had an impact and broken down those networks. The right hon. Gentleman may have been arguing for TPIMs to be applied indefinitely to ensure that that disruption was permanent and took place over a longer time scale. My view is that disruption would have taken place within the first two years and the links would have been broken. To suggest that TPIMs should be extended beyond two years presents a threat from the civil liberties perspective.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
There is a case of somebody being subject to a control order that has been in effect for more than two years. If the advice of the Security Service is that it should continue, what would the hon. Gentleman say?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If there has been no evidence of any activity whatever during that period—TPIMs would allow for the measure to be imposed again if there was some sign of activity—and if there has been no activity, with the additional surveillance that will be provided, one must question the Security Service’s position. It might want to keep the person under a control order indefinitely, but if there is no evidence of activity surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that a line must be drawn. Given that the person had not undertaken any terrorist activities, the disruptive effect would have been felt and no further application of a control order would be appropriate.
As I said, control orders have been debated annually, and they have been renewed annually.
Naomi Long
Control orders having to be debated annually gives Parliament the opportunity to reconsider the situation before deciding whether to continue. The fact that up to now the control order system has been renewed on each occasion does not mean that it would be so indefinitely. Does it not make sense that we should continue to treat these measures as exceptional, rather than routine?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which is a very sound one. I hope, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he responds, that because counter-terrorism legislation is so essential, the Government will want to keep it under review, and that if, in future years, there is a need to adjust the measures, appropriate adjustments will be made.
What are the other objections to TPIMs? There is the question of whether there is any difference between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. It is my view that the Bill presents a higher evidential hurdle. The courts are aware of that, and they know the difference between those two. That difference is significant.
I acknowledge that TPIMs maintain a system of Executive-imposed measures that do not lie comfortably inside the judicial system. The Bill imposes measures that restrict freedom and human rights. As hon. Members know, those measures include but are not limited to overnight curfews, restrictions on travel, exclusion from certain places and buildings, and restrictions on electronic devices. It has been argued by the Opposition and by Liberty that these measures simply reflect the most offensive aspects of the control order system, but I do not think that that is the case. Clearly, in relation to relocation, internal exile, which the Soviet Union would have been very comfortable with, has gone.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns about the successive non-debate of this issue by Parliament and the fact that a defendant with a two-year TPIM might never know why it was imposed and never have the evidence given to them? All they know is that they have a barrister who does know but is not allowed to tell them and that the judge knows but is not allowed to tell the barrister. Therefore, a circle of secrecy surrounds something that has a major impact on a person’s life, is career-changing, and so on. Is that really right in a liberal democracy?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman might not be surprised to know that I agree with much of what he says. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has an opportunity to speak, he might echo that very same point. That is why the Bill is clearly an improvement on what is in place now, but has scope for further improvement. I am sure that we will return to that in this place and perhaps in the other place.
Pete Wishart
Does not the hon. Gentleman understand and appreciate that those of us who cannot stand these things think that the Liberals have compromised too cheaply on these issues? I remind him that his leader said:
“A battery of curfews and tags, imposed in a legal limbo at the behest of politicians, is no surrogate for the aggressive use of the full force of the law.”
Why have the Liberals caved in so cheaply on these issues?
Tom Brake
I hope to explain why I do not think we have caved in cheaply, as the hon. Gentleman stated. First, relocation has gone. I accept that on overnight curfews I would be much more comfortable with what Liberal Democrats have referred to previously as residency requirements. An address would be identified at which the person would be expected to reside. I hope that the fact that there is no specific definition of overnight curfews will lead to a more flexible approach; that there might be a spectrum according to which overnight curfews may be imposed, going from what most would regard as overnight—eight or 10 hours—through to something much closer to a residency requirement. If overnight curfew was specified precisely, the risk is simply that that is what would be adopted in all cases, so there would not be the ability to consider each individual case in detail. In addition, the exclusions are specific, not geographic as previously, and there is access to telephones, computers and the internet, a matter that was raised by families in relation to their children and their ability to use computers for schoolwork, and so on. Those are real changes that are included in the Bill.
Another area of concern that has been flagged up and to which the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred is the extent to which the person subject to TPIMs will know what they have been accused of. The Home Secretary said that the individual will know enough about the key elements of their case to enable them to act. That is worthy of further discussion and elucidation. I see the Minister nods and perhaps when he responds he will be able to say more about what this will mean in practice. Clearly, it is an ongoing issue for Liberal Democrats, the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure that people who are subject to control orders or will be subject to TPIMs know as much as possible about the allegations against them without revealing the confidential sources that could put at risk people in the field.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of legal decisions that now require the person subject to a control order to be informed of the substance of the case against them? It is not something new; that is the legal position.
Tom Brake
I am aware that there have been cases where that has been the outcome.
I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up that matter when he replies. I also hope that this will give him an opportunity to update us on intercept evidence. I understand the difficulties in balancing the operational requirements with the legal requirements and in balancing the scale of benefits with the associated costs, but I hope that he will update the House.
I referred to prosecutions in relation to surveillance evidence. It might be helpful to specify a time frame within which a prosecution must be brought. There may be some scope for moving on that in future debates.
I come now to a couple of subjects that I suspect will not necessarily boost my popularity in certain quarters, but having advocated the importance of voting rights for some prisoners my popularity might not be in the ascendant in any case. It is important to treat in a civilised way those who may wish to inflict death or injury on us in order to expose their barbaric nature. That is why we need clear safeguards for those who are extradited to the UK. If people have suffered torture abroad and are subsequently moved to the UK, on their arrival the UK Government have an important role in assessing any health or mental health implications that should be taken on board. There is also the ongoing issue with regard to the role of the control order review group, which the Government will ensure continues in operation under TPIMs, in reviewing the mental health of people subject to control orders and now to TPIMs. It has that role at present, but from the discussions that I have had with those who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed it does not seem to be working very effectively.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about people who may have been subject to torture in other jurisdictions. This is a controversial issue, but does he agree that we should not deport people to a jurisdiction that has not signed the UN convention on torture, and that they should remain here until such time as that jurisdiction signs it, rather than the unfortunate arrangements that were made with a number of countries in the past?
Tom Brake
That is a difficult point to address. I know that there are concerns about how watertight memorandums of understanding are, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is a tough call. I am at risk of making policy on the hoof if I give an instant response. It is a difficult issue and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will say whether the UK Government are making progress in drawing up memorandums of understanding with other countries where we believe that the safeguards are sufficient to allow that.
There are some issues around how people subject to TPIMs are dealt with, and what sort of assessment is made, particularly of their mental health, and any torture that they may have experienced in the countries that they come from.
I will support the Government on Second Reading. The Bill is better than its predecessor. Its measures are more targeted, less damaging to individuals subject to TPIMs and more observant of human rights. But it is not perfect and can be improved, and I hope that it will be during its passage here and in the other place.
Hazel Blears
But that is no reason to relax the powers. If there are fears that such activities could be happening now, I should be very concerned indeed and certainly would not want to go down the path of having less control over access to electronic equipment. I require further reassurance, as do the citizens of this country, that we are not going to give people access to mobile phones and computers so that they can maintain those relationships and networks that are the very reason they are subject to a control order or, indeed, will be subject to a TPIM. We require further reassurance on that issue.
I am very concerned about the inability to renew the TPIM after two years. In the case of AM in 2007, the control order lasted for more than two and a half years. When it came up for renewal Mr Justice Wilkie, confirming its renewal after two and a half years, said that AM was
“highly intelligent, calm, cautious beyond his years. He has replied and maintains this degree of calmness and self-confidence, which in my judgment is consistent with the view of the Security Service that he is a disciplined, trained and committed person whose commitment remains unimpaired, despite the length of the control order. He was and remains prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives. He remains highly trained, security conscious and committed.”
I am therefore concerned that if there is a blanket prohibition, in any circumstances and without the addition of new evidence of involvement in terrorism such orders will come to an end. I require further assurance. If the reason for making the TPIM in the first place were of sufficient seriousness, I would be extremely concerned about our deciding simply to say that there is an arbitrary cut-off point, as the legislation does, irrespective of the threat that the person poses.
Hazel Blears
These are matters for careful and balanced judgment, which is why we have constant judicial oversight, why we have to return to the courts to renew our orders and why we have a legal system in this country which is capable of making such judgments. If we are in the hands of a respected, experienced and knowledgeable High Court judge, who has heard submissions on the issues, I should feel slightly more content than if an order simply came to an arbitrary end as a result of legislation passed in this House.
Policing and Crime
Tom Brake Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have been a Member of the House since 1997, and I still naively expect this Chamber to be a place of rational debate. However, there has certainly been no evidence of that from the Labour Front-Bench contributions today, either during the previous debate on sentencing or during this one on policing. There is no recognition of their share of the responsibility for the significant cuts that the coalition is having to make. They are tougher than we had expected because the finances we inherited were deteriorating faster and the international climate was tougher for countries that were not tackling their deficits.
There is no willingness from Labour to demonstrate how the £7 of savings it was going to make, as opposed to the £8 that the coalition is having to make, would safeguard police numbers. Indeed, Labour Members are not even listening to their own party leader, who said in his speech to the Progress conference on 21 May:
“There will be those who say it is enough for Labour to hunker down… I hear it quite a lot: let’s be a louder… Opposition”,
but he then went on to say:
“But to think that it is enough is to fail to understand the depth of the loss of trust in us and the scale of change required to win it back. We must recognise where we didn’t get things right”.
Their leader is asking Labour Members to adopt a more honest and considered approach, but they do not listen to their leader, as we found out during the AV campaign when he said, “I’m right behind it” and half of them walked off in the opposite direction.
It was the Opposition’s choice not to have a debate about what is achievable from an efficiency savings point of view and what is achievable in police numbers. We heard in an intervention that police numbers in Staffordshire had been maintained.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I met the chief constable of Cambridgeshire constabulary this morning and he told me that the budget can be managed so that there will be no reduction in police constables at all, and perhaps even a small increase. It is being done by greater efficiency and by greater collaboration with other forces. Will my hon. Friend suggest that other police authorities follow that excellent lead?
Tom Brake
Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Clearly, a number of forces around the country are adopting approaches or policies to ensure that police numbers are maintained. Another good example is Cleveland, where by working with Steria the force has been successful in achieving savings of £50 million over a 10-year period; it has been able to achieve 20% reductions in the areas on which they are working by focusing on cutting bureaucracy, increasing mobile access to make the police more effective when they are out in the field, and improving case file preparation, which no doubt leads to more successful prosecutions. When the will is there, much is achievable in making greater efficiency savings and focusing on police numbers. The Government are right to tackle the issue of police terms and conditions. It has been on the agenda for many years, but has never been tackled. It was time for the Government to grasp that particular nettle and progress is now being made.
It was also the Opposition’s choice not to debate one of the most effective ways of tackling crime, which is by cutting reoffending. Community sentences were mentioned in the earlier debate. With community sentences, 51% of people reoffend as opposed to the 59% who reoffend after being given a prison sentence. These are comparable groups of offenders: in one case, with a community sentence properly enforced, there is only a 51% reoffending rate; when a similar group of prisoners are sent to prison for one year or less, 59% reoffend.
David T. C. Davies
Is the hon. Member aware that that report also showed that anyone sentenced to more than 12 months in prison had the lowest reoffending rate of all? Is not the lesson we should draw that long prison sentences are more effective than anything else?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am drawing on one part of the report; he is drawing on another. It is very clear that community sentences, for people who would otherwise have been given a short prison sentence, actually reduce reoffending. That means fewer victims. Surely, if we are having a rational debate, that must be a matter of interest to all Members.
For community sentences to be effective, I underline the importance, as stressed to me by User Voice, of ensuring that rehabilitation is retained within the community sentence scheme. In its view, those sentences are more effective than prison sentences because the rehabilitation component is there. I hope that that will remain part of the community sentences that are going to be issued.
Work in prison is also important. It is effective in tackling reoffending because it gives prisoners skills that they can use, as well as providing—according to the Howard League, which published a report today—something like £17 million that can go into the victims fund. I am sure that everyone would welcome that as well.
Volunteering in prison is potentially just as effective in reducing reoffending as work in prison. Last week the Prison Reform Trust launched a very successful scheme at High Down prison drawing on the skills of listeners, and I am certain that the reoffending rate among former prisoners who have participated in it will be less than that among those who have not.
The Opposition did not, of course, choose to call a debate about the most cost-effective ways of solving crimes. Today I was fortunate enough to visit Crimestoppers, which happens to be based in my constituency. What it is achieving at a cost of £4.5 million has been valued at £120 million. Last year it helped to solve 50 murders. It favours payment by results, because it believes that it has a very successful model. By using the public as a resource, it is able to bring cases to court much more quickly than it could have done had it followed the normal court and police processes.
The Government have set out in a concrete and substantive way what we believe will be effective in tackling crime and what we believe is necessary to deal with inefficiencies in, for example, the back office. I feel that it was incumbent on the Labour Members who tabled a debate on this subject to set out what their alternative would have been, but I am afraid that that has been totally lacking this evening.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The debate is on policing, but I shall touch on the economics of the situation, which are raised so often by Government Members. The Opposition are not in denial about the deficit, but we do not accept that we caused it—[Interruption.] Members on the Government Benches can snigger and laugh, but they could say that we caused the deficit only if no other country with a similar economy had had the same problems. All those countries had the same problem with their economic and banking systems because of the recklessness of the bankers, the sub-prime mortgages and the fact that some banks had balances that were bigger than the GDPs of many countries. They were reckless. We saved our system and as a result we managed to save half a million people becoming unemployed.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will give away on another point, not on this one.
We recognise that there are financial difficulties, but we must ask what we will achieve when we save money. We must ask whether if we save £10 in one area, we will end up paying £20. That will happen with the police cuts and the changes to the police more than with the changes to any other service. Staff numbers might be cut in the Department for Work and Pensions without repercussions elsewhere, but when front-line police officer numbers are cut that is a false economy.
There has been discussion in the House about imprisonment and long-term sentences and, in some cases, long sentences deter people from committing offences. What really stops people committing offences, however, is the fear of being caught, being prosecuted, being convicted, going to prison and having their liberties taken away. When somebody sees a police officer on the street, they will not commit a crime. When they know that there are a number of police officers in a particular area, they will not commit a crime. We will save the money that is spent when someone is arrested on prosecuting them, on lawyers’ fees, on our prison services, on prison officers, on probation officers and on all the different agencies that work in the criminal justice system. Of course, let us not forget the poor victim who suffers as a result of the criminal offence. If we put together the cost of all that, we must ask whether it is worth making that £10 saving when we will end up spending £30 to deal with the problem that the saving causes.
I urge the Government seriously to consider how cuts should be made in a Department such as the Home Office, given that we will have more problems in the long term. I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said that we must not blind the House with statistics, but everybody always bandies statistics about and it is right to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about the fact that crime, including violent crime and crimes against properties, fell considerably during the 13 years of Labour government. That did not happen miraculously—the Labour Government invested in the police, spent money on community support officers and gave more money for fingerprint analysis, DNA evidence and technical support. The combination of those things caused the crime rate to fall. Government Members can tell us not to quote statistics, but that is the truth: crime fell under Labour and it fell for the reasons I have given.
It is not just me who says that crime will rise. The chief constables of South Yorkshire and Lancashire have said that that will happen if the numbers of front-line police officers are cut. It is inevitable—it is common sense—that more crimes will occur if police numbers are cut, so I urge the Government to reconsider this false economic measure.
Vernon Coaker
Before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, I should say that I have not heard of the new rule that one has to let an MP know every time one visits friends. I went to see friends of mine in Cambridgeshire who happen to be police officers, and they told me what the impact on front-line officers will be. If I had to choose between the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and front-line police officers in Cambridgeshire to tell me about the impact on the front line, I know who I would trust.
The hon. Member for Shipley spoke about the impact of DNA and CCTV. People and communities up and down this country are not saying to me as shadow Policing Minister, to my hon. Friends or to Government Members, “We’ve got far too many CCTV cameras in our area.” I do not have people queuing up in my constituency to tell me that. They are not saying, “Actually, our civil liberties are being undermined tremendously”. They say that they want more CCTV, because they understand that it supports the police and helps them fight crime. It reassures people and enables crime to be tackled effectively.
Vernon Coaker
I will not give way, because I have only a couple of minutes. I normally would, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
A point that has not yet hit home is that supported housing, domestic and sexual violence services and youth services—the community services that people depend upon—are all being cut. When specialist housing support, sexual violence officers and the specialist domestic violence services provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations are no longer in place, people will instead dial 999 and ask for a police officer, who by their nature will try to attend. That will be a real problem for the police, because demands on them will go up as there is contraction in other services.
The Home Secretary spoke in absolute terms about what police and crime commissioners would do, but said not a word about the defeat in the House of Lords. She spoke as though the vote there had never taken place. There was no reference to it at all, no slight heed paid to the fact that the Government’s plans might need to change.
Human Trafficking
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It was only four short years ago that the United Kingdom reflected on the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807. At the time, among all the self-congratulatory celebration, I suggested that our renewed focus should be on refreshing our resolve to tackle the modern equivalent of slavery—human trafficking. Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transfer and harbouring of men, and particularly women and children, so that they can be exploited for forced labour, sexual services or domestic servitude. It is the most unpleasant by-product of globalisation in the labour market and now scars each and every constituency.
The modern-day slaves that human trafficking has created are voiceless and vulnerable. They are stowed in the untouched shadows of our communities. They exist not just in the seedier corners of my central London constituency or of Manchester, because the backdrop to their exploitation can equally be the sprawl of suburbia, the fields of our countryside or even the beaches that line our shores. The means of their subjugation are varied. Sometimes, there is violence, but traffickers might equally threaten to harm a victim’s family; they might enslave people through debt; they might reduce them through shame; or they might manipulate them through deception.
As illicit ways to make money go, trafficking can be perceived as comparatively low risk. A busy brothel with five to 10 girls in central London, for example, can make £20,000 a week, without the violence and risk associated with the illicit drugs trade. As for those with even baser motives, trafficked victims working outside the established sex trade are attractively difficult to detect.
In putting my speech together, I was aware of the imminent publication of the Home Office strategy on human trafficking, which was promised in the spring, but which may now be released in June, owing in part to pre-local election purdah. I hope that the debate will prove timely and will, along with the strategy, help to create momentum by raising public interest and reigniting the will to tackle trafficking more robustly. I also hope that it will serve to clarify what progress the Home Office has made since October, when a number of Members, including some in the Chamber, raised legitimate questions about the Government’s strategy in the debates marking anti-slavery week.
A debate that took place as recently as last Monday helped to raise the issues before us, and I hope that the Minister will not find this morning’s proceedings too repetitious. I put in for this debate some weeks ago, but, alas, the unquenchable enthusiasm of the 2010 intake makes securing a Westminster Hall debate these days far trickier than it was in the past. Nevertheless, last week’s debate focused primarily on the European directive on human trafficking, so I hope that we can cover some new ground today.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I apologise, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. In last week’s debate, a point was raised about there being an independent voice for children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is an independent voice to support children in legally challenging the UK Border Agency, the police and other statutory or voluntary agencies, when the actions being taken are not in a child’s best interests?
Mr Field
I have particular sympathy with that point, not only because children are particularly vulnerable, but because having people acting in loco parentis in the way in which my hon. Friend has described is a well-known legal process.
It is important that we do not simply use the debate as an opportunity to produce an hysterical portrayal of the problem or to condemn Governments, past or present, for a lack of progress. I accept that this is an immensely complicated issue; it obviously has legal bearings, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and it touches on many parts of our system from policing to immigration, justice, housing and social services. I wish, however, to encourage a measured debate about how we can best create an environment that is hostile to traffickers. I also want to send out a clear message that we are firmly on the side of the victims.
In discussing human trafficking, I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians past. The erstwhile Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, has probably done more than anyone to raise the profile of trafficking at the parliamentary level. He founded the first all-party group on the issue in 2006, and he continues to work as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based at Blackfriars in my constituency. I played a small part in bringing Anthony together with the City of London corporation to ensure that the foundation was based in a high-profile place in central London. I cannot hope to emulate Anthony’s incredible passion for, and knowledge of, this subject, which he displayed in an extremely detailed debate that he led in the dying embers of the previous Parliament, but I hope that our discussion pays homage to some of his work.
Whenever we approach a subject such as trafficking, people inevitably demand numbers, so that they can grasp the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, as we all know, reliable statistics are difficult to come by. Some people contend that the number of trafficked victims is very low, while others contend that the figures are grossly underestimated. As a covert crime, trafficking is inevitably incredibly tricky to measure.
Mr Field
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, although, without wishing to defend the planning officer fraternity too much, I suspect that the phenomenal financial constraints that most local authorities find themselves under mean that they are not necessarily prioritising this area, but it is important that we put those concerns on the record.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He has discussed different organisations needing to be educated about the problem, so that they can tackle it more effectively. Does he agree that when the elected police and crime commissioners take responsibility for policing, it will be essential for them also to understand the importance that people place on tackling human trafficking? That should not be neglected.
Mr Field
I am not sure that I want to go too deeply into concerns about precisely where that legislation goes, not least given yesterday’s comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one considers the populist element of electing police commissioners, I hope that everyone—not only MPs, but interested residents, constituents and citizens—will make it plain that the problem needs to be tackled; indeed, it might be part and parcel of the manifestos of would-be candidates for such a role.
The Government have declared human trafficking to be a coalition priority; I mentioned earlier that we await a new strategy that will shortly step up our efforts in that regard. We recently put our name to the EU directive on trafficking, so the UK has signed up to various obligations. Nevertheless, and without wishing to pre-empt the strategy, I want to put some of my thoughts to the Minister.
It is quite clear from my work on the subject that the current disparate, multi-agency approach has a multitude of fundamental flaws. I have alluded to some of those flaws, which others also recognise. Some are the result of the inherent difficulty in dealing with such a complex and varied problem. However, the Government should consider making a few reasonably small improvements.
The notion of a one-stop shop was put to me by Detective Superintendent Duthie as a means of improving the treatment of trafficked victims and the collection of intelligence. Victims tend to have a variety of needs, and at the moment they are dealt with by a huge range of organisations based in different places. A one-stop shop—a human trafficking centre, as it were—might assist in dealing with health, housing, legal aid, counselling, immigration, repatriation, family reunification and more. I wonder whether the Minister would let us know his thoughts on that idea.
When researching the subject in advance of this debate, I was struck by the poor information available on the internet of all places. If I were a trafficked victim, the first resource that I would use to find a way out of my situation would be the internet. Although a one-stop shop might be seen as too expensive, has the Home Office or any other body considered setting up a presence on the internet that would provide easy, comprehensive and readily available advice to trafficked victims on how to report their experience and, more importantly, how to escape? As things stand, information is dotted across a range of sites, which is incredibly confusing.
Earlier, I mentioned Paladin, the police unit tasked with identifying trafficked children at London’s ports. Concern has been raised by the recently ennobled Baroness Doocey about alternative trafficking routes. Her fear is that Paladin’s vigilance at Heathrow and other points of entry might persuade traffickers to use other routes; in particular, she is concerned that there are no specialist child protection officers working full time at St Pancras, even though that station is within Paladin’s remit.
Passenger Name Records
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman always paints a happy prospect of life ahead. I am grateful for his support and on the data protection issues I can say that the British information will be dealt with by the British Government, so we will not see the random international sharing of information that he suggests—I agree that that would be bad for data protection issues. On the e-Borders system, we are indeed proceeding with letting the new contracts. We already have more than 90% of routes outside the EU covered by e-Borders and we hope that within the next 12 months that coverage will be more or less complete, so that will proceed quickly. Clearly the biggest single gap in the e-Borders coverage is within the EU, which is what this directive is very precisely going to help us with.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister rightly says that the directive will make Britain safer, but will he say a little more about the safeguards? Specifically, will he confirm that the data will not be used for profiling and that the UK’s data protection standards will apply?
Damian Green
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that specific assurance that the data will not be used for profiling. Indeed, the amount of sensitive personal data that will be put on the system is one of the liveliest matters for negotiation. I entirely share his instincts, which I know to be that although data need to be collected and stored for the protection of our citizens, that must done proportionately. In many ways, the ideal situation is that we collect and store the exact minimum of data that we need to enhance the security of the people and do not drift into the situation that the previous Government fell into. They believed that they made us safer by collecting and storing more and more data and keeping them for longer. That did not make any British citizen safer but it did amount to an assault on our civil liberties.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
Starting on Wednesday, when the House of Lords Committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill begins, there will be proper and due consideration of every aspect of the Bill. However, it is our intention that police and crime commissioners will be introduced across England and Wales.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Accountability of police forces to the public is essential, but so are robust checks and balances to challenge the actions of any commissioner who exceeds their powers or seeks to interfere in operational policing matters. Will the Home Secretary consider seriously the request from the other place that the new accountability arrangements be piloted and the checks and balances strengthened?
Mrs May
As I said in response to the previous question, there will be proper and careful consideration of all these issues as the Bill goes through Committee and its further stages in the House of Lords. I am aware that issues have been raised about the police and crime panels and how they use properly the checks and balances in place to hold police and crime commissioners to account. It is our intention to introduce commissioners across England and Wales.
Trafficking in Human Beings
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
I agree that there have been severe difficulties in that regard. My hon. Friend will know that there tends to be a concentration of child victims of trafficking in certain local authorities, and one of the things that encourages me is the way in which local authorities—particularly those that are the most affected—are now learning best practice from each other and getting a grip on the problem of disappearance, which has afflicted many child victims of trafficking. For instance, Hertfordshire has, by adopting new systems, reduced the number of children who disappear from 36 to two in 12 months.
Great improvements are clearly needed, but we have already seen them being made in some local authorities, which are developing the kind of systems that are effective in enabling them to fulfil their statutory duty to protect children. They have comprehensive systems in place to do this, and adding another guardian to that framework would risk creating another level of complexity in arrangements that are already strong and that ensure the best interests of the child. Even worse, it would risk creating confusion for children themselves if plans for their care were not effectively co-ordinated.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What would be the difference between having an independent reviewing officer and advocate, and having a guardian? Is it the Minister’s view that the combination of an IRO and an advocate amounts to a guardian?
Damian Green
That is exactly my view, and having another guardian would be confusing and potentially bureaucratic. Indeed, in discussions with the very energetic all-party group on human trafficking, one of its leading officers, the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, made the point that when the directive talks about a guardian, it does not, in her view, mean a guardian ad litem—a legal representative of the child—who would deal with the courts, as happens in “normal” child protection issues. The truth is that the concept of the guardian in the directive is slightly vague, and slightly declaratory, and we believe that our present system is already achieving what the directive wants us to achieve.
Another provision that has generated great interest is the idea of a national rapporteur on human trafficking. Again, we believe that we have equivalent mechanisms in place that fulfil that purpose, in the form of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, for data collection, and the inter-departmental ministerial group, for oversight. I recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members and others that this function should be carried out by an independent body, and I will keep those arguments under consideration.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The fact that we are doing so is a tribute to Members on both sides of the House and others, including the Minister for Immigration, the Home Secretary, the members of the all-party group on human trafficking, Anthony Steen and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). It is a collective achievement, therefore.
As Members will know, in Europe alone the estimated value of trafficking is £3 billion, and about 140,000 people are being held in conditions of effective slavery in Europe. This morning, I had a meeting with Croydon Community Against Trafficking, which has done very good work in identifying brothels. From its research, it concluded that there were 65 brothels in Croydon. It passed that information to the police in Croydon, who had identified only eight brothels. This shows the scale of the problem we are facing both in European terms and at the local level, and it highlights the fact that human trafficking, especially for the sex industry, is a significant issue.
I want to thank the Home Secretary again. We have had an extensive exchange of correspondence on this matter over the past three months or so, and there are a couple of points on which I seek clarification relating to the impact the EU human trafficking directive will have in the UK and any additional measures the Government might intend to take. When I intervened on the Minister on the topic of guardians, he said he was confident that the combination of an independent reviewing officer and an advocate was, in effect, a guardian or the equivalent thereof. I am sure he is right, and I hope so too because when we have to respond to the petition on guardians with 600,000 signatures that ECPAT is apparently going to be handing in on Thursday 12 May, it will be much easier if all Members can collectively say that the matter has been addressed. It will save us a significant amount of pain if we are in a position to say that.
It is my understanding that forced begging is already a crime in the UK. I ask the Minister to clarify either now or later whether a comparable legal penalty is attached to that, and whether as a result of the implementation of the human trafficking directive we will follow other countries in recording the figures for forced begging so that we can draw straight comparisons. In my mind at least, there was also some confusion as to whether other offences that are not currently covered in the UK are addressed by the directive and therefore whether we might now have other offences as well as forced begging.
Victims of trafficking receive free medical care, but what support in respect of accommodation, and especially safe accommodation, is there, and does the Minister expect that to be provided to all victims?
On the protection of victims in criminal proceedings, the Home Secretary confirmed that special measures such as witness protection and anonymity are not guaranteed, but are granted on a case-by-case basis. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that they will be available in cases where that is clearly necessary. Also, there is a suggestion in the response that if legal aid is not available, victims should seek help from non-legal professionals or legal voluntary organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. Given the nature of these crimes, will the Minister consider whether victims should, in fact, receive proper legal support when they require it?
I referred in my opening comments to Croydon Community Against Trafficking, and I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it is doing. Following promptings from Anthony Steen, it is trying to expand its network to all the London boroughs. Many of its activities are based on following leads from adverts as they appear in newspapers. I am sure that Members will welcome the fact that Newsquest—which produces many of the local newspapers around the country, including my own, the Sutton Guardian—has given a guarantee that it will not carry these ads. That is not the case for others, however, such as the Advertiser group. I am afraid that on occasion its papers are in the bizarre situation of featuring on the front page articles about raids on brothels that have resulted in their being shut down, while on the back pages carrying adverts for the services of those brothels. I hope the Minister will address that. He has welcomed the actions of Newsquest, and I wonder whether he might like to put a challenge to other newspaper groups in respect of the adverts they continue to carry.
I also ask the Minister to set out how he sees the time scales developing from now on, in respect of any other measures that might be taken or hoops that might have to be jumped through, before we can finally say that the EU human trafficking directive has been adopted in its entirety and we can once again commend all the actions that have collectively been taken to ensure this becomes part of the UK’s legislation.
Government Reductions in Policing
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government are facing up to reality. The most challenging financial circumstances that this country has faced since the second world war have made me acknowledge that the quality of policing cannot simply be about the number of police; it must also be about how well they are deployed. Government Members have always been clear that police forces can make savings, while protecting front-line services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.
There may be no agreement on that between the Government and the Opposition, but at least there is agreement on police budgets. Let us be clear: the Labour party admits that it would be cutting police funding, that it could not guarantee police numbers, and that it could not guarantee that police staff would not be lost. That is not only because of the cuts to police funding that it had proposed, but because, irrespective of the plethora of targets that operated when it was in power, it still could not dictate to chief constables exactly whom they did or did not employ.
At the moment, the police are crippled by bureaucracy and spend more time on paperwork than on patrol. That frustrates the police, who want to do their job, and the public, who want to see more police on the streets. The coalition Government are scrapping unnecessary bureaucracy to save police time. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos both said that we would reduce time-wasting bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are helping the police to make savings, and to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.
Graham Jones
Would the hon. Gentleman not add cutting crime to that list? He has listed bureaucracy, but surely the purpose of the police is to cut crime. Will that be in his speech at some point?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is the second point on which we can agree: the police should, indeed, cut crime.
The police could also make savings from consolidating IT services, as the Home Secretary said. The police have no fewer than 2,000 separate IT systems. Surely that is a good place to look for savings. We can do much more with technology to help the police use their time more effectively, and all parties agree that we need to do much more to ensure smarter procurement.
Another point on which the coalition partners agree, but on which Labour opposes us, is the terms and conditions of police officers. The Government were right to set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and of course the coalition Government will work in co-operation with the police negotiating bodies on the matter. To fight crime, we need a modern and flexible work force to help chief constables manage their resources properly, maximise officer time and improve the service to the public. We are clear, of course, that the police must be fairly compensated for their work, which is difficult and often dangerous, as we have been tragically reminded over the weekend following the callous murder of Ronan Kerr.
What are the key facts behind what the coalition Government are doing? It is true that Government funding for the police is being reduced, and will be reduced throughout this Parliament. However, as the Home Secretary said, the police also receive precept funding, and the Government’s freeze in police pay will make a substantial contribution to maintaining budgets.
I acknowledge that the picture across the country is complex, and it is clear from the reports that we are getting from different forces that some are finding the situation tougher to address than others. However, as Members have said, some police forces are actually increasing the number of front-line officers, such as Gloucestershire police, which is moving up to 15% of police officers into more visible roles. Many Members have quoted the HMIC report, which revealed that some forces have twice the visibility and availability of policing of others. It is clear that all forces can make improvements to the visibility of police officers.
The same report showed that a third of resources are not on the front line, and highlighted the great differences in the visibility of police officers at different times. Some 16% are visible on a Friday morning at 9 o’clock, but only 9% are visible and available on a Friday night. Again, it is clear that there are things that forces can do to increase the visibility of police without necessarily touching police numbers. They can provide police at the time when the public want to see them. I am sure all Members have been accosted by constituents who ask them why police officers and safer neighbourhood teams are out patrolling at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning rather than in the town centre at 9 o’clock on a Friday night. Improvements can therefore be made to rotas.
The Labour party’s record is worthy of some scrutiny. As Opposition Members may well know, in 2009 just 14% of all officers’ time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork. In one year alone, from 2007 to 2008, the amount of time spent on paperwork increased by 22%. The Home Secretary referred to the comment of Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, that Labour had a political obsession with numbers of police.
Stephen Twigg
I am grateful. In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, does he regret the commitment that he stood on last May of 3,000 additional police officers?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I apologise for pre-empting it. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that the circumstances that we are in have required all parties to reappraise any prior commitments in their manifestos. Quite simply, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there is no money.
I turn back to the previous Government’s record. Jan Berry, as the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned, said about police bureaucracy:
“I would estimate one-third of effort is either over-engineered, duplicated or adds no additional value.”
She was the person whom the previous Government chose to examine bureaucracy, and that was her assessment of police effort.
Keith Vaz
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would have been sensible if Jan Berry had been asked to continue the work that she started? She produced an excellent report, but I understand that her work has now been transferred to the chief constable of the West Midlands, a serving chief constable. Surely it would have been better if Jan Berry had been allowed to monitor the results of her recommendations.
Tom Brake
I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I am absolutely certain that the work that Jan Berry has already done will inform what the chief constable and the Government are doing to address bureaucracy.
A previous Labour Home Secretary, when he was asked in April 2010 whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall, said that he could not. The shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that under his plans,
“you will lose some non-uniformed back office staff”.
It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Chancellor cannot even agree among themselves what their position on the Winsor review is. The former has attacked the Government for initiating the review, but the latter has said that overtime and shift work savings are something that
“any sensible government would look at”.
I suggest that they need to get their house in order first.
Yvette Cooper
To clarify, we have criticised the Government many times for pre-empting the Winsor review, not for commissioning it. We have criticised them for announcing their views on the amount of money that should be cut, and for criticising the police in the newspapers, in advance of the Winsor review rather than after it.
Yvette Cooper
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is inviting interventions, because we have said that it is right to examine how the police work. However, will he confirm that his party’s pledge of 3,000 additional officers was made when the now Deputy Prime Minister said that although financial circumstances were extremely difficult, the position of the police was so important that there would be 3,000 additional police officers as part of his party’s manifesto commitment?
Tom Brake
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for intervening and putting on record the Labour party policy on policing—that it is right to examine how the police work. That is as close to a policy statement as we are going to get tonight.
The debate could have been an opportunity to discuss the coalition’s programme of police reform and budget reductions, and to contrast that with the Opposition’s track record and future plans. Regrettably, the Opposition did not grasp that opportunity. Instead, we had the usual “too fast and too deep” or, alternatively, “too far and too fast” line from the shadow Home Secretary, peppered with lame police and justice themed jokes, recycled from an earlier speech. When will she accept that saying that the coalition is going too far, too fast does not amount to a policy for the Labour party? If she wants to be taken seriously, she will have to work out her party’s policy before she next stands at the Dispatch Box.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
This is the fourth time in my short career in the House that I have spoken in a policing debate and, sadly, the second time I have done so while a murder investigation is ongoing in my constituency. That makes it a good time for me to pay tribute to the police for their hard work. Large-scale and difficult investigations like this one after the senseless murder of young Jia Ashton in Somercotes a couple of weeks ago help us all to appreciate how hard a job the police sometimes have.
It is important to put our debate on policing into context. We are debating the subject in the shadow of the most difficult public finance situation in peacetime history. As we look through these large and confusing numbers, it is important to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) just explained, that the Opposition’s last financial plan when they were in government involved them in about 90% of the spending reductions for this financial year—a difference of only £2 billion, which they spent many times over. They cannot get away with saying that if they were in power we would not have to face the huge savings that need to be made or the huge cuts that need to be found. In fact, neither of the main parties at the last election pledged to make no reduction in police funding or police numbers. Moreover, the last Labour Home Secretary—we have already had three shadow Home Secretaries in this Parliament—admitted that police numbers would fall under Labour as well.
The public do not much enjoy listening to us throwing blame around the Chamber. They want to hear us talk about what the Government should be doing to ensure that we have the efficient and effective policing that we need. The Government might have passed a Bill stating that there would be no reductions in uniformed police officers, but I am not sure whether we could have recommended such a Bill or whether it would have worked or been at all sensible. We have all seen the awful trend of having uniformed officers working at back-office functions for which they are not trained and which they are probably overpaid to do. What we need is something different. We want the highly trained police officers to be out on the streets, not doing support or back-office roles, however we want to define them.
The Government clearly can and should do certain things. I would like to talk about three particular examples: the funding for each force, reforms to pay and conditions and taking steps to strip away bureaucracy. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still in the Chamber. She has heard me say this before, but I think it is important to bear in mind the difference in funding levels. Let me point out yet again that for many years Derbyshire has lost about £5 million a year —which equates roughly to 160 officers—because the last Government did not implement their own funding formula establishing the requirement for each force.
I realise that it was not possible for any Government to solve the problem in the time available, but I urge the Home Secretary, when the next funding round arrives, either to start to implement the existing funding formula or to introduce a new one. It cannot be right for us to keep saying “Here is a formula; here is the amount that you want; oh, sorry, you cannot have it”. That simply is not sustainable. We are led to believe that some forces do not have to work under the same financial pressures as Derbyshire and several other authorities in the east midlands.
I may gain more agreement from my colleagues on the Front Bench when I speak of the need to reform pay and conditions. The point has been well made that at a time when more than 75% of police budgets is spent on pay, there is a clear link: if we do not reform pay and conditions, we shall have to accept a smaller head count. Although imposing a two-year pay freeze is not a pleasant task, reforming police allowances and overtime payments must be the way forward. I say that cautiously, as the police service parliamentary scheme enables me to spend Wednesdays touring Chesterfield with members of the police force. I hope that, if they read the report of my speech, they will understand what I was trying to say. I am happy to debate the issue with them.
I urge the Government to make some progress on the Winsor review. The last thing that any of us want is for police forces to have to make cuts and savings and then, when the final recommendations of the review are published, to discover that the problem was not as bad as had been feared, and that they need not have made those savings. A degree of certainty on pay and conditions and the pension position will help everyone. I do not think that any of us work at our best with a huge amount of uncertainty hanging over us for longer than necessary.
We also need to strip away bureaucracy, and during their 11 months in power the Government have made considerable progress in that regard. We all want as many man hours as possible to be spent on the front line. I believe that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary defines the front line as officers
“who directly intervene to keep people safe and enforce the law”.
I do not know whether others agree with that definition, but it strikes me as a reasonable form of words.
The abolition of the police pledge, the reduction of bureaucracy and the granting of more discretion to the police to fight crime should be hugely welcomed. Talk of absolute police numbers is not the clearest way of discussing the issue; I think that what the public want to see is the right number of officers engaged in the right duties at the right times and in the right places, working in a smart manner.
Tom Brake
One issue that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other Members should consider is the amount of time spent by safer neighbourhood teams on petrol stations. I was appalled to discover that one BP garage in one ward was using 20% of the safer neighbourhood team’s time to deal with drive-outs and shoplifting. I suggest that Members with petrol stations in their constituencies ask how much of the local safer neighbourhood teams’ time is being spent in that way because they have not, for instance, ensured that CCTV is up to scratch, and that staff are properly trained to prevent shoplifting from becoming rife.
Nigel Mills
The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible point. I hope that the Government’s decision not to increase fuel tax even more will not provide any further encouragement for thefts from petrol stations.
Various reports have been quoted as saying that in 2009 only 14% of police officers’ time was spent on patrol and 22% was spent on paperwork. That cannot be right: there must be scope for the police to work in a far smarter manner. According to Jan Berry’s report—which has been referred to—about a third of police time is ineffective, and that demonstrates the scope for savings.
I commend the work that Derbyshire police have done, and continue to do, in their “Moving Forward” savings programme. I recently had an opportunity to quiz the chief constable, the officer in charge of the change programme and various others about how they were approaching it, and to challenge them by suggesting some additional things that they could think about. I was impressed by how well on track they were, and how well they had thought everything through. They have managed to save £700,000 already by putting sergeants back in charge of evidence gathering and case preparation, and they have saved about £1 million through increasing regional collaboration, so there are things that all forces can do.
Disturbances (London)
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. After such events, it is important that we take the appropriate time to consider all the issues that have arisen and give proper consideration to whether we need to give the police any further powers to enable them to do the job we want them to do in this new environment.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary commend the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters and the police for their measured response, urge the police to maintain their close-proximity approach to policing and reject calls for a policing approach that is based on distance and relies on water cannon and cordoning off large sections of a city?
Mrs May
As I said in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the way in which the main march was policed was a good example of, and a tribute to, the British model of policing. It was important that the police were able to do that in co-ordination with the organisers of the march, who had been in discussions with them about it in advance of the event.
Student Visas
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This is an issue in which he has taken a long-standing interest. I will give two answers to his question. The e-Borders system, which is being put in place, is partly working at the moment; complete application will come in 2015. In the next couple of months we will also make proposals on settlement, in which I know he has taken a particular interest.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that higher education in the UK is world class, and that our top institutions should remain open for business to genuine students, but that bogus colleges, which provide nothing more than an excuse for entry into the UK, should be forced to close their doors promptly?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package that we have introduced today will protect our universities, which provide a world-class education. Students should want to come here for that quality of education, and we need to crack down on bogus colleges. It gives the UK a bad name when people see that they can come here supposedly as students but not get a proper education.