House of Commons

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 8 September 2010

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

1. What discussions she has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the implementation in Wales of a reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had numerous discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is responsible for political and constitutional reform, on matters affecting Wales in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

[Jonathan Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current electoral architecture in Wales, which grants the Labour party 65% of the representation on barely 36% of the vote, can be described neither as democratic nor as valuing votes from Wales equally?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government’s proposals for electoral reform are founded on the principles of equality and fairness, and it is clearly fair that votes cast at parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom should be of broadly equal value, including in Wales.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

There are currently approximately 170,000 people missing from the electoral register in Wales. On Monday, the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government are considering ways of putting those people back on the register. Will that happen before or after the Boundary Commission’s freeze date in December?

[Mr Jones]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party did not address that matter when it was in government. The vital consideration must be to ensure that all votes are fair and that all voters are fairly registered, and that will be the principle on which this Government proceed.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

How can the Minister and the Secretary of State possibly justify cutting proportionately three times as many Welsh MPs as English MPs, creating monster constituencies in rural Wales and geographically impossible ones in Welsh valleys? Instead of ramming through those changes, why will not the Government maintain the existing system of public inquiries that has protected local interests for generations?

[Mr Jones]

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I would have thought that he would be as anxious as Government Members to ensure that votes cast in general elections are fair and of equal value. As it stands, votes in certain parts of the country are worth significantly more than those in other parts. So far as constituency boundaries are concerned, I remind him that they will be determined by the impartial and neutral Boundary Commission, with which I have already had discussions.

[Mr Hain]

But the Minister and the Secretary of State have presided over rigging the situation in advance. Is the Secretary of State proud that by slashing the number of Welsh MPs by fully a quarter from 40 to 30, she is the first Secretary of State for Wales in history to reduce Wales’s voice in Parliament? Why is she also the first Secretary of State to refuse a request for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee? Does she not understand the anger about that among Welsh MPs of all parties, including hers? We demand a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that our constituents can see what is being done to them.

[Mr Jones]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Our position, to which I would have thought he would be signed up, is that votes across the country should be of equal validity. The current position is that they are not. On holding a Grand Committee, I imagine and hope that he and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), will be present at the meeting that we have convened this afternoon to put their concerns forward.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on the review of the economic impact of S4C.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have had several discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the importance of S4C and Welsh broadcasting in general, and I will continue to do so to ensure that Wales receives a broad range of programmes about and for the people of Wales. I have also had discussions with the senior management at S4C.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. Does she agree that given its programming for children, its substantial forward spending on planned programmes and the profound sociolinguistic effect that it has, S4C is in no way just another television channel that happens to be in Welsh? It is not a Welsh version of Dave TV, nice thought that is.

[Mrs Gillan]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. From what I have seen of S4C, it is a television station that continues to meet the needs of Welsh speakers by providing programmes and services through the medium of Welsh. It is fair to acknowledge that it is dealing with some internal problems at the moment, but I have been impressed with the range of services that it provides, particularly to people who are learning Welsh. He may know that I visited the set of “Rownd a Rownd”, where I was extremely impressed by how we are bringing on young acting talent in Wales through that soap opera. I was impressed with the cast and the production team working on it.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will also be aware of the significance of the independent TV production sector and the importance of its relationship with S4C. The sector was recognised in a Select Committee report in the previous Parliament as one in which Wales excels. Extensive cuts could jeopardise that. Will she continue to make the robust case to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the scale of the potential cuts?

[Mrs Gillan]

I will continue to do that on a regular basis. One thing that is so exciting about the Welsh economy is our huge potential in the creative industries. There is tremendous potential between the BBC and ITV, which is expanding its news coverage, and S4C, but our broadcasting industry must face the reality of the budget within which we must work, thanks to the previous Government’s mismanagement of the economy. However, I stress that the television industry is the place for independent companies to do business.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

3. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the A400M military transport aircraft and Airbus in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have already held discussions with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary on a number of military issues that affect Wales, and I have arranged to speak to him again during this two-week sitting of Parliament. I also wrote to him specifically on that issue in July, highlighting the importance of Airbus to the Welsh economy.

[Mark Tami]

During the election, a number of Tory candidates in north Wales published leaflets that contained a pledge from the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, that that project would go ahead. Is that pledge still valid? Is it worth anything?

[Mrs Gillan]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in such matters, and so he should, because Airbus employs, I believe, more than 6,500 people at the Broughton plant in his constituency. The order book for the A400M currently looks very healthy, with orders for more than 180 aircraft worldwide and at least 22 for the UK. I am confident that the position is secure.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to concentrate on the importance of military activity and training in Wales. Will she therefore ensure that when she next meets the Defence Secretary, she stands up for the RAF in Wales, and bases such as RAF Valley, which has had substantial investment in the past 10 years? They serve the economy locally, but they will also serve our country well in future.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman should know that I have deep affection for RAF Valley, having done my armed services parliamentary fellowship scheme with the RAF. I was even privileged to sit in the back seat of several fast jets, courtesy of some first-class pilots. The RAF has a special place in my heart, and I can certainly assure him that I will always speak up loudly for RAF Valley.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues, and we regularly meet the Association of Chief Police Officers Cymru, Police Authorities of Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association and other interested parties to discuss matters affecting policing and law and order in Wales.

[Jessica Morden]

With Welsh police forces facing budget cuts this year of more than £6 million, which is a real threat to front-line policing in constituencies such as mine, will the Minister tell the House how much it will cost to elect and fund the proposed directly elected police commissioners in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that we have had to impose budget cuts to make a start on sorting out the appalling economic legacy that we inherited from the Labour party. Elected police commissioners will not cost a penny more than the police authorities that they will replace, and they will add the considerable value of ensuring that there is a democratic link between the electorate and those responsible for overseeing the police.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The Police Minister indicated that police authorities could make savings by reducing overtime, but police authorities such as Dyfed-Powys have already reduced overtime to a minimum as a result of previous efficiency savings. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Wales convey that to the Police Minister, and ensure that not all police authorities are dealt with on the same basis, so that peculiar requirements are taken into consideration?

[Mr Jones]

The Government clearly recognise that any cuts present challenges to our police, as they do to other front-line services, but they also present an opportunity to refocus policing priorities and operational requirements. The Welsh police authorities have already shown an excellent lead by combining procurement, to the extent that they have saved more than £3.5 million in the last financial year, and I hope that that pattern will continue.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Following on from the Minister’s earlier response, the Local Government Association estimates that the cost of these police commissioners will be £50 million, or the equivalent of 700 police officers. Does not he agree that it would be perverse to introduce these superannuated sheriffs at the same time as making cuts in neighbourhood policing?

[Mr Jones]

As I have already indicated, the cost of the police commissioners will not be a penny more than the authorities that they replace. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I have already held a meeting with the Welsh Local Government Association. I have also seen the letter to which he alludes, and I have passed it on to colleagues in the Home Office. I reiterate that it will not cost a penny more than the police authorities that the commissioners will replace.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on the future of winter fuel payments to people in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

Winter fuel payments provide assurance to older people that they can keep warm during the colder winter months by providing significant help with fuel bills. As announced in the Budget, winter fuel payments will continue to be paid for 2010-11, which will benefit some 680,000 people in approximately 494,000 households in Wales.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I wish to put to the Minister a question that was raised in a meeting of the over-50s group in my constituency last week. The Prime Minister gave assurances about safeguarding benefits for the elderly and the winter fuel payment during the election, but we now hear rumours that the qualifying age may be increasing from 60 to 66, or possibly more, and that the basic winter fuel payment could be cut by £50 for new recipients or £100 for the oldest. What merit should we give to those statements that were made during the election?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the coalition agreement makes it clear that the Government intend to protect the winter fuel payment. It is clear that the age at which both men and women get winter fuel payments will move in step with the equalisation in entitlement to the state pension, but I reiterate that the coalition agreement makes it clear that we intend to protect that payment.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues, the Welsh Assembly Government and CBI Wales on support for Welsh businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have regular discussions with many ministerial colleagues to ensure that we support Welsh businesses. I have already met with CBI Wales twice, and I have quarterly meetings planned with the CBI along with other business organisations in Wales, so that the issues affecting individual companies are fed directly into coalition Government policy.

[Alun Cairns]

Over the last 10 years, Wales became the poorest part of the United Kingdom under the Administration of Labour both here at Westminster and in Cardiff bay. A recent Oxford Economics report suggests that over the next five years Wales will create only 4,000 new jobs. Given that Wales will have the same macro-economic conditions as every other part of the UK, is not that a sad indictment of the Administration in Cardiff bay and the legacy of Labour?

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend has experience of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly, so I will leave his comments to stand. I agree with him that the situation that we have inherited is shocking across the UK, and it is especially sad in Wales because gross value added per head is the lowest out of all the UK nations and has been that way since 1998. However, I want to be optimistic about the Welsh economy and I have recently visited some very successful businesses that are investing in Wales and looking at creating jobs, including Corus, Sharp and Ultrapharm—the latter is producing wheat-free healthy lifestyle products for Marks and Spencer. I have been impressed by the number of jobs that are starting to appear in the Welsh economy, and I want to encourage more businesses to come and do business in Wales.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

With the public sector cuts inevitably having a disproportionate effect on the Welsh economy, what countervailing measures is the right hon. Lady arguing for with the Treasury to stimulate private sector growth in Wales?

[Mrs Gillan]

I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has to ask such a question, but he knows that he has to because the last Government left this economy in tatters, and it has fallen to this coalition Government to put the economy back together again. As he well knows, we are providing an environment in which business can do business in the UK. We are reducing corporation tax by a penny each year, which will give us one of the lowest corporation tax regimes in the European Union, we have reduced the taxation regime for small companies, and we have incentives on national insurance for entrepreneurs setting up businesses. I can assure him that we are doing everything that we can to create a healthy environment in which businesses and private business can prosper.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on private businesses in Wales of the loss of public service contracts and purchasing power caused by redundancies, cuts to rises in benefits and the proposed new VAT regime?

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Lady knows that the deficit needs to be tackled immediately, and it was her Government who left us in this dire financial situation. Of course, I cannot pre-empt anything that might happen in the comprehensive spending review, but I recognise the vital role that public sector contracts play in the prosperity of businesses across Wales, and I know that the economy is heavily dependent on the public sector, so I have already made representations to the Treasury, and will continue to do so. However, I am afraid that the financial mess we are in was the responsibility of her party.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the effect on levels of employment in Wales of proposed reductions in public expenditure.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of topics, including the reductions in public spending necessary to tackle the deficit.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting and brief response. Will he actually answer the question more fully by commenting on the fact that the latest employment outlook survey says that employers in Wales expect to decrease staffing levels in the next few months by 8%, and that the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales has said that

“it’s not surprising that small firms might be planning staff reductions”,

and that is due to major public service cuts? Will he for once speak up for Wales and accept responsibility for the situation that his Government are creating for communities in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to see that the hon. Lady recognises the appalling financial legacy of her Government. Under the last Government, unemployment in Wales increased by 60%, from more than 82,000 to 130,000 in the last 10 years. We can restore the Welsh economy and return life to it only by allowing the private sector to grow. On that basis, we have introduced measures, such as the national insurance holiday, that will stimulate significantly the private sector in Wales. Wales cannot rely on the public sector alone.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

8. What discussions she has had with the First Minister and ministerial colleagues on the proposed referendum on the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have had regular discussions with the First Minister and ministerial colleagues on the proposed referendum on the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, I discussed it with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on Monday.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that, as devolution develops, we will need a fair constitutional settlement across the United Kingdom, and is it not the Government’s intention, therefore, to address English votes for English laws, and indeed English and Welsh votes for English and Welsh laws?

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend knows that our approach to constitutional matters is informed and underpinned by our commitment to the Union and devolution and our conviction that power should rest in the hands of those we serve. Indeed, we have committed, in our programme of government, to establishing a commission to consider what has become known as the West Lothian question, and we are working to take that forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State eventually comes up with a coherent and intelligible question for the referendum on further powers for the Assembly, will she be asking the Electoral Commission to carry out a further consultation on the question she will place before the House?

[Mrs Gillan]

I feel that I should say to the hon. Gentleman, “Listen very carefully, I will say this only once,” because I heard an interview that he gave on the radio in which it appeared that he had not listened to the answers that I gave at the last Welsh questions. Can I just tell him that I have—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but there are far too many noisy private conservations taking place. I want to hear the Ministers from the Front Bench, and I want to hear right hon. and hon. Members asking their questions.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am very grateful to the Electoral Commission for its report and the 10 weeks of examination that it gave to the question that was designed by the project board. On Monday I worked with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I have considered its findings. We have all agreed that we should accept its findings and take forward the preamble and the question that has been put forward, on an objective and independent basis, by the Electoral Commission, and I shall be making a further statement to Parliament.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the effects on front-line policing in Wales of planned expenditure reductions. [Official Report, 16 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 3-4MC.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues on policing matters in Wales. We recognise that reductions in budgets will be challenging to our police forces, but will also present opportunities to refocus policing priorities and make operational efficiencies.

[Chris Evans]

I thank the Minister for his response. Given how successful the Safer Caerphilly community safety partnership has been in substantially reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that she will fight any plans to cut funding for next year?

[Mr Jones]

The question of funding for the police is a matter that will have to await the comprehensive spending review, but I am heartened by the comments of the National Audit Office and the Wales Audit Office about how it should be possible to effect reductions of £1 billion without any effect at all on front-line policing.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

10. What recent discussions she has had with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers and ministerial colleagues on Government policy to assist the rural economy in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I attach great importance to rural communities in Wales and the economic challenges that they face. The Wales Office has set up a taskforce of officials to look at the rural economy and see what we can do to support and encourage growth in our rural areas.

[John Howell]

Having contributed to the Welsh rural economy during the recess by spending a very enjoyable holiday in Wales, may I ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to promote economic renewal and growth in the Welsh rural economy?

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is contributing to that economic renewal and I hope that he will continue to do so in years to come. The Wales Office is currently consulting groups that represent businesses and the rural economy, to gather their views on what we can do to help them grow in these challenging times. I have already held meetings with a number of interest groups, including the farming unions, and I look forward to taking that work forward over the autumn.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

There is a company in my constituency called Desk-Link. Unfortunately it is going through difficult times. Since January, many of the staff there have been paid late. Some workers have found that their tax and national insurance contributions have not been paid. Will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Jobcentre Plus assist my constituents in getting the support to which they are entitled?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ difficulties. If he would care to write to me, I shall ensure that his representations are put forward to the appropriate Departments.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

11. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on prison capacity in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the prisons Minister in July to discuss prison capacity in Wales.

[Guto Bebb]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current financial crisis means that a new prison in north Wales is now a distant probability? If that is the case, what discussions has he had with the Ministry of Justice about rehabilitation services in prisons in England that currently service prisoners from north Wales, and in particular for those prisoners who have Welsh as their first language?

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have recognised for some time the need for a prison in north Wales. These are matters on which we have made representations to the prisons Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), but clearly the question of whether one is affordable will have to await the comprehensive spending review.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

12. What recent discussions she has had on opportunities for the leisure industry in south-east Wales arising from the forthcoming Ryder cup.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have recently visited a number of venues associated with the leisure industry in Wales, and I have seen at first hand some of the preparations being made for the 2010 Ryder cup. I have been impressed by all the hard work that will make this event a great Welsh success, and I am sure that, like the people of Newport, we are all anxious to see this fantastic event tee off in three weeks’ time in Wales.

[Paul Flynn]

This is a wonderful, unique opportunity for us to show off our city of Newport and the rest of Wales. Will the Minister guarantee that she will do everything she can to ensure that there is a full legacy from the Ryder cup for the young people of Newport, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mrs Gillan]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Ryder cup is going to be fantastic in Wales and I would urge Members to encourage their constituents who enjoy golf to visit this fantastic venue. The legacy fund already involves a £2 million investment by the Welsh Assembly Government, and it has so far distributed £1.5 million in grants for various projects across Wales. This is an event for Wales that all the political parties can come together and support wholeheartedly.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 September.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I have been asked to reply. As the House might be aware, the Prime Minister’s father was taken seriously ill last night and, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend has travelled to be with his father and his family. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone on both sides of the House when I say that we send him, his father and his family our best wishes at this difficult time.

I shall start by paying tribute to the brave servicemen who have lost their lives over the summer since the House last sat. They were: Corporal Matthew Stenton, from the Royal Dragoon Guards; Lance Corporal Stephen Monkhouse, from 1st Battalion the Scots Guards; Sapper Mark Smith, from 36 Engineer Regiment; Lance Sergeant Dale McCallum, from 1st Battalion the Scots Guards; Marine Adam Brown, from 40 Commando, Royal Marines; Lieutenant John Sanderson, from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment; Rifleman Remand Kulung, from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment; Sapper Darren Foster, from 21 Engineer Regiment; Sapper Ishwor Gurung, from 69 Gurkha Field Squadron; Lance Corporal Jordan Bancroft, from 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment; Lance Corporal Joseph Pool, from 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland; and Captain Andrew Griffiths, from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. Each of those men was an heroic, selfless individual who has given his life for the safety of us and the British people. Nothing can ease the pain of the loved ones, families and friends they have left behind, but their lives, service and sacrifice will never, ever be forgotten. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

We also remember Dr Karen Woo, who was killed while providing aid and medical services to Afghan civilians, and we offer condolences to the wife and family of Ken McGonigle, a devoted father of four and former police officer in Northern Ireland, who died on 7 August while mentoring police forces in Helmand province. As I saw again when I was in Afghanistan last week, the bravery of our servicemen and others who are risking their lives daily to help the people of Afghanistan is both inspiring and humbling.

[Mark Pritchard]

Yesterday, West Mercia police announced that they were laying off 300 personnel. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, if it were not for the financial mess left by the previous Government, many of those jobs—and, indeed, thousands of other public sector jobs across the country—could have been saved? It is now left to the new coalition Government to take the difficult decisions to sort out the nation’s finances.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree that the previous Government have left us with an extraordinary legacy, with the largest deficit in our peacetime history. It was they who took their eye off the ball and allowed the banks to lend money irresponsibly, and it was they who racked up these extraordinary debts and deficits—[Interruption.] They were irresponsible in government, and they are now living in denial in opposition.

We did not just inherit a legacy of deficit; we also inherited a legacy of bureaucracy. As Sir Denis O’Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, pointed out in July, 2,600 pages of guidance were issued to police officers last year alone. He said that, if they were laid end to end, they would be

“three times higher than the Eiffel tower”.

We need less bureaucracy and more police on the streets. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First of all, we need much less noise. Secondly, I remind Front Benchers of the need for pithy exchanges to enable as many Back Benchers as possible to contribute.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those who have lost their lives serving our country in Afghanistan since the House last met? We know that for each one of those individuals, there is a family who are immensely proud of their service but who are consumed with grief for their loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with those bereaved families and the comrades and friends of all those who have died.

I think that all of us had hoped that part of the opening of Prime Minister’s questions would be an opportunity for us to express congratulations to Mrs Cameron and the Prime Minister on the birth of their new baby—and, of course, on behalf of the Opposition, we certainly do so. Sadly, however, that is tinged with the dreadful news about the Prime Minister’s father. Let me say on behalf of the Opposition that I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision—to be where he knows he has to be, with his father and his family at this difficult time.

The Prime Minister in May brought Mr Andy Coulson into 10 Downing street. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is entirely satisfied that, while Mr Coulson was editor of the News of the World, at no time was Mr Coulson aware of any use of unlawful hacking of telephones?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the Prime Minister and the great news about the birth of a new baby daughter. I will, of course, pass that on.

As for the issue of phone hacking, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as we all know, that this is a very, very serious offence—a very serious offence indeed. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy, and it is right that two individuals were convicted and imprisoned. As for Mr Coulson, he has made it very clear that he took responsibility for something at the News of the World of which he had no knowledge, and he refutes all the allegations that have been made to the contrary. That statement speaks for itself. It is now for the police and the police alone to decide whether new evidence has come to light that needs to be investigated.

[Mr Straw]

That was not an answer to the question I put. The question was: is the right hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that, while Mr Coulson was editor of the News of the World, at no time was Mr Coulson aware of any use of unlawful phone hacking? Yes or no?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Coulson has made it quite clear that he had no knowledge and he refutes all the allegations. While, in a slightly rushed manner, I was preparing for today, suspecting that this issue might come up, I read in one of the briefing notes I received that when Andy Coulson resigned from the News of the World the first person to call to commiserate was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). He told him not to worry, that he had done the honourable thing and that he knew he would go on to do a worthwhile job. [Interruption.]

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must calm themselves. I cannot imagine why they are so excited, but I want to get down the Order Paper.

[Mr Straw]

In May of this year, the Deputy Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary said that Mr Coulson was

“either complicit in criminal activity or the most incompetent editor in Fleet Street”.

Which is it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement that if new evidence has come to light—and that is what I want and that is what I expect—the police will now actively look to see whether that evidence is worthy of further investigation. That is what the police are there for; that is what they should be doing.

Of course, it was under the previous Government—the Labour Government—that no further action was taken. It was the former Home Secretary, who has been making all sorts of pious remarks in the press, who decided not to involve Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take any further action. If the police now think that new evidence has come to light, let them decide.

[Mr Straw]

The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister’s hon. Friend the Conservative hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), said:

“The evidence, we find, makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Mr Goodman, was aware of the activity”

of phone-hacking. What does the Deputy Prime Minister know that the Select Committee did not know?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The police now need to decide whether, in the light of the new allegations that have been made, there is new evidence which requires further investigation. That is what the police are there for, and I want them to get on with that. That is what I expect they should do. But honestly, I am simply not going to take any lessons from a party whose members spent all their time in office back-biting against each other through leaks and counter-leaks to the press—the party of the dodgy dossier, of cash for peerages, of Damian McBride. Let us have a little bit of consistency on this, shall we?

[Mr Straw]

So, when the police have uncovered 2,978 mobile telephone numbers of potential victims and The New York Times has named the Deputy Prime Minister’s own hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) as a potential victim, does the Deputy Prime Minister expect us to believe that the only person who knew nothing about phone hacking at the News of the World was the editor—the very man whom the Prime Minister has brought into the heart of this Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What I expect and hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe is that it is now for the police to investigate whether these new charges and allegations have anything to them. That is what the police are there for. Does the right hon. Gentleman want us all to start second-guessing what is in the newspaper and what statements have been made? Let the police—[Interruption.] Look, we have a war in Afghanistan, we have a flood in Pakistan, and the right hon. Gentleman is inviting the Government to second-guess the work of the police. I should have thought that, after all the years during which he was involved in our criminal justice system, he would know better.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Yesterday a serving police officer was jailed for an appalling assault committed in a police station in my constituency. While I believe that we can draw confidence in the Wiltshire police from the brave officer who blew the whistle, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it cannot be right that, owing to restrictive police conduct regulations, the offending officer continued on full pay for more than two years after the attack?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Like, I suspect, many Members in all parts of the House, I was deeply shocked by the pictures of the offence that was perpetrated by the police officer. I also share people’s dismay that action was not taken more speedily. However stressful the conditions in which police officers work, it is absolutely essential that they uphold the very high standards of their own conduct in all circumstances, and that was clearly not the case in this instance. I am glad that action is finally being taken, although, like my hon. Friend, I wish that it could have been taken earlier.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

Q2. This morning the Business Secretary reaffirmed his commitment to the separation of high street banking from casino banking. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that separation is essential to ensuring that the British taxpayer need never again bail out banks that are too big to fail?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a lively debate about the relationship between retail banking and investment banking. The former Chancellor has made his own views very clear from his party’s Front Bench: he does not think that there is a case for separation. The Liberal Democrats believed in opposition that there should be a separation, and a debate is now taking place within Government.

We have asked Sir John Vickers to chair an independent commission, which will consider how we can ensure that there is safety and stability in our banking system for good. That action was not taken by the last Government. We will look at the commission’s recommendations, and then decide.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that in the last year of the Labour Government they spent £10,000 for every man, woman and child in the country on current public spending, and given that that will go up to £11,500 a head over the five years of this Government under Budget plans, is it not clear that the coalition Government can get through without any damaging cuts to important public services?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend well knows, the challenge of balancing the Budget and filling the huge black hole left to us by Labour is, indeed, very difficult. That has, of course, been recognised by Tony Blair in his recent book, where he has said:

“if governments don’t tackle deficits”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have not read the book yet. I want to hear what Mr Blair has had to say.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am relieved that Mr Speaker wants to hear that the book says

“if governments don’t tackle deficits…This then increases the risk of prolonged slump…If we fail to offer a convincing path out of debt, that...will itself plunge us into stagnation.”

I agree.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Q3. The charity Shelter this week revealed that 54,000 children who live in households that are already well below the poverty line are going to lose out as a result of the changes to housing benefit, and the Department for Work and Pensions’ own document has revealed that 52,000 of the poorest pensioners will be on average £11 a week worse off as a result of the changes. Is that what the Chancellor meant when he said his Budget was tough but fair?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The legacy we inherited—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know Opposition Members do not want to hear this, but it is worth reminding people in the country at large that after 13 years of Labour the United Kingdom has the highest—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will be heard. There is far too much noise. Members must restrain themselves and give the Deputy Prime Minister a proper and fair hearing.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The United Kingdom now, after 13 years of Labour Government, has the highest number of children in workless households in Europe. That is an absolutely shameful legacy, and one of the things that this Government are going to do, which the previous Government failed to do, is create incentives to get people off benefits and into work. That is the surest way out of poverty and the surest way we can look after those children who were abandoned and not looked after by the previous Labour Government.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q4. After the Chinook crash in 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre, every inquiry that has been held that has been independent of the Ministry of Defence has found it impossible to attribute negligence to the pilots who died in the crash. May I thank the Government for honouring the pledge made before the election to hold a review and ask how the independence of that review will be assured?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am acutely aware of my right hon. Friend’s considerable expertise on defence matters and of his long-standing interest in this tragic disaster and the circumstances around it, and I am pleased to be able to confirm today that we will be holding an independent review of the evidence on the Mull of Kintyre disaster. I hope that the review will be welcomed by the families of those who died in that tragic accident. To ensure its complete independence, the review will be conducted by a respected lawyer who is independent of the Government and who has not previously expressed a view on the disaster. The reviewer and the precise terms of reference will be announced soon.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Last month the police ombudsman released his report into the Claudy bombing by the Provisional IRA in 1972, where nine innocent people were murdered. The ombudsman concluded that the Secretary of State at the time, a senior police officer and the Roman Catholic cardinal colluded to ensure that a chief suspect in the bombing who was also a Roman Catholic priest was transferred to the Irish Republic rather than be brought to justice. I will wish to raise the matter directly with the Prime Minister, but will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in calling for the Catholic Church to apologise for its part in this, and for the surviving members of the Provisional IRA, including the Deputy First Minister, who I understand today confirmed that he visited the suspect priest as he lay on his deathbed 30 years ago, to declare all that they knew about one of the worst atrocities in Northern Ireland’s troubled past?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a full apology on 24 August on behalf of the Government. The Government are profoundly sorry that Father Chesney was not properly investigated at the time for his suspected involvement in this hideous crime and that the victims and their families have quite simply been denied justice. However, I wish to reiterate that, although after the attack the then Government acted wrongly in not insisting that the Royal Ulster Constabulary properly investigate Father Chesney, it was terrorists who were responsible for this despicable and evil attack, which took innocent lives, including that of an eight-year-old girl. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that a public inquiry is not being considered, on the grounds that there simply is not likely to be any further evidence to consider. We have co-operated fully with the ombudsman’s investigations, making all papers available to him, the Historical Enquiries Team is also now investigating the case, and in the interests of transparency the Government have published the only document that they hold referring to discussions about Father Chesney.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Q5. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Government honour their pledge to Equitable Life policyholders and uphold the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; we are absolutely committed to bringing justice to the Equitable Life policyholders. These people were shamelessly, shamefully betrayed year after year by the previous Government. We have published a Bill on this, we have taken the recommendations from Sir John Chadwick, which we will consider, and we will create an independent mechanism by which justice is finally provided to the policyholders, who were so shamefully overlooked by the previous Government.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Q6. Does the Deputy Prime Minister have any qualms at all about the coalition Government’s 2010 Budget, which took 2,000 front-line workers out of Jobcentre Plus? Given that fewer people were in work this June than the previous June and given this week’s review into the work capability assessment, will he ensure that the comprehensive spending review provides the front-line staffing resources that Jobcentre Plus offices around the country need to get people off benefit and back into work in the way that he just described?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree, of course, that the most important objective of all is to increase incentives to work. That is why in that same Budget we increased the personal allowance by £1,000, taking close to 900,000 people out of paying any income tax. We did take measures to protect the vulnerable and the elderly: we dramatically increased child tax credit, and we provided a triple guarantee to pensioners, so that their pensions will increase by 2.5%, by inflation or by earnings. Of course it is easy in opposition to deny any responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves in the first place, but I simply ask the hon. Lady and her colleagues whether they have any qualms about the fact that her party and her Government announced £44 billion-worth of cuts but never had the decency or honesty to tell the British people where those cuts would fall.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Q7. Given the number of disturbing cases such as that of my constituent, Andrew Symeou, a 21-year-old young man who was extradited to Greece well over a year ago under the European arrest warrant and who has spent more than 10 months in jail yet still does not face the prospect of a trial date, will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the Government to reviewing this very worrying legislation? Will he also agree to a meeting with the parents as a matter of urgency, involving either himself or the Prime Minister?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I would more than welcome that meeting with either myself or the Prime Minister. We are all aware of the concerns about the way in which the European arrest warrant works. I understand that the Minister for Europe has met Mr Symeou’s parents and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be willing to do so again. Of course this is in the context of even wider concerns about our extradition arrangements, not only those in the European Union, but those with the United States. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced today that we will be reviewing the UK’s extradition arrangements in the round. The review will focus on the operation of the European arrest warrant, on whether or not the United States and United Kingdom extradition treaty is unbalanced, and on whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence to us.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that today is my birthday? If I tell him how to pay for it, will he agree to give me a present of a couple of aircraft carriers? None of your foreign rubbish—I want British ones and I do not want to have to share them with some French bloke. If he had it Monday to Wednesday and I had it Thursday to Saturday and we shared weekends, we would have to get the permission of the Child Support Agency if we wanted to make any change in that. All that could be paid for by cutting our contribution to the European Union. Will he agree?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I of course congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his birthday and I am delighted to see that his enthusiasm for things European has not mellowed with age. I am happy to give him a gift, but on the question of whether it is a gift of the size and shape that he has requested, I am afraid that I cannot oblige him today.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Q8. Some people enter the country and receive NHS treatment but do not pay their bill. Then they apply for another visa to come back again. Is that fair? Will the Government stop it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is of course right that fairness is one of the NHS’s founding principles and we must retain that principle. We need to consider measures to make possible dealing with people who have rightly been given care by the NHS—because the NHS provides care to everybody on the basis of need—and who are supposed to make a contribution but escape the obligation to do so. That is what we are working on and we will be coming forward with announcements soon.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q9. What would the Deputy Prime Minister say to my constituent, Rachael Shipp, who now finds that all her hard work, community action and fundraising in line with big society thinking will come to naught as the Government cut the moneys promised to her neighbourhood group for their much-needed playbuilder scheme? She cannot understand why a referendum that has no electoral mandate and that she sees as irrelevant will go ahead at a cost, according to the TaxPayers Alliance, of £100 million which could be better spent on community schemes such as hers in Lilac avenue.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am very amused that the referendum, which the hon. Gentleman claims has no mandate, was in the manifesto on which he campaigned at the last election. I know that Labour is enjoying denying any responsibility for the past—U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. One hundred thousand members of the public have made suggestions about how we can try to bring some sense to our public finances without hitting the vulnerable and without hitting front-line public services. Have we heard a single suggestion from anyone on the Opposition Benches? Not a single suggestion. Until the Labour party catches up with reality, it will not be taken seriously.

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

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify to hard-working taxpayers facing economic difficulties in their own families and businesses the fact that he wants to spend £100 million of their taxpayers’ money on a referendum on the voting system?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am amused that my hon. Friend gets a cheer from the Opposition Members who advocated that same proposal. That of course is the reason, as my hon. Friend knows, why we think that there is a compelling case for saving up to £30 million in the cost of holding the elections in May and the referendum on a separate occasion by combining the two on the same day. I suspect that she is not that keen on that idea, but I hope that over time she will come to support it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q10. The Deputy Prime Minister is famous for his humility. Following the report of the Select Committee and this morning’s report in the Financial Times, is he now prepared to apologise for the mistake that he made about Sheffield Forgemasters and to join the Liberal leader of Sheffield council in calling for some public finance for that project?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reason, regrettably, why the £80 million loan that was announced by the previous Government 11 working days before the general election to coincide with a nice photo opportunity for the previous Prime Minister at Forgemasters has not been able to proceed from this year’s Budget is that it is not affordable under this year’s Budget given that the structural deficit we inherited was so much greater than we thought. In other words, it was a promise made where the money was not available. It was a cheque written which the previous Government knew would bounce, but we have made it very clear to Forgemasters that we will continue to work with it to see how we can support it in future once the Budget situation becomes clearer after the comprehensive spending round.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Q12. Chinese lanterns pose a threat to farmers both because of the fire risk to standing crops when lanterns fall into fields and because the wire frames are cut into small pieces by harvesting equipment so that wire is incorporated into animal feed such as hay and silage, killing farm animals. What steps will the Government consider taking to reduce the risks in this area?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Everybody who lives and works in rural areas knows that this issue is causing a great deal of distress to both farmers and their livestock. We have been looking at ways in which we can deal with the issue and reduce the risks posed by the lanterns, while not wishing to ban them completely. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been in contact with the manufacturers of the lanterns and has demanded that the lanterns in future should be 100% biodegradable and should have full safety instructions with them.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Q11. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the Rotary Club of Braids in my constituency, which has raised thousands of pounds for shelter boxes to send to Pakistan and other areas that are devastated by events? Will he give a commitment that his Government will consider altering the gift aid scheme to ensure that bucket collections can be included, so that the club’s valuable work can go much further?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We will, of course, look at anything that will continue to encourage people to be as generous as they have been in responding to this truly horrific catastrophe. I was in Pakistan, in Sindh province, just last week, where I saw for myself the scale of the situation. It is genuinely difficult to comprehend that an area the size of the whole United Kingdom has been submerged under water. Some 20 million people have been displaced and my fear is that the worst is still to come as water-borne diseases start taking hold. That is why I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s active interest in this issue and why I will welcome work from him and Members on both sides of the House so that we can work together to continue, both as a Government and as a people, to show the support that all the many distressed communities in Pakistan deserve at this time.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Q13. May I ask the Deputy Speaker about the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill? If the Bill is significantly amended in Committee or defeated on Third Reading, will the Liberal Democrats leave the coalition, or can he give a guarantee that they will stay in it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not sure if it will please or disappoint the hon. Gentleman when I say that the persistence and resilience of the coalition is not dependent on any one single piece of legislation. He will know—again, I am not sure if he will be pleased or displeased by this—that the Bill is only one part of a much, much wider programme of political reform. That includes giving people the power of recall so that they are able to sack their MP if they are shown to have done something seriously wrong, cleaning up party funding and producing proposals finally to reform the other place. I am afraid that political reform does not begin or just end with this one single Bill.

Privilege

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has written to me concerning the hacking of the mobile phones of hon. and right hon. Members. Having looked into this matter, I have decided that it is a matter to which I should allow precedence. Therefore, under the rules set out at pages 167 to 168 of “Erskine May”, the hon. Member may table a motion for debate at the commencement of public business tomorrow. It will appear on the Order Paper after any statements and before the debate on UK armed forces in Afghanistan.

PAYE Contributions

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

12:35

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reported errors made by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that appear to have led to millions of people underpaying or overpaying billions of pounds of pay-as-you-earn contributions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should be grateful if hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly so that the Minister, Mr. David Gauke, can respond to the urgent question.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement to the House about the action that HMRC is taking to rectify overpayments and underpayments in the PAYE system.

The PAYE reconciliation process occurs every year to reflect the changes in people’s earnings and employment status that happen over the course of a tax year. In previous years, HMRC employed a system of manually joining up separate pieces of information through PAYE. Each case of potential overpayment or underpayment had to be reviewed individually before reconciliation could be finalised. That was inefficient and clerically intensive work, and it resulted in a backlog of open cases. HMRC now employs a new computer system that matches records automatically to ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid.

The coalition Government have already started to look at how to reform PAYE further and make it more efficient. As part of the Government’s strategy to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, we are consulting on options to improve PAYE. The PAYE system was introduced at a time when people had one job—perhaps the same job for their whole career—and one source of income in retirement. However, that world has now gone and it is common for people to have earnings from multiple sources. That is well known, but it is something that the previous Government failed to address.

No reconciliation process was undertaken last year, so this year HMRC had to complete the reconciliation for two years instead of one. The preliminary assessment of this year’s reconciliation was first brought to my attention earlier in the summer, and while the majority of PAYE records are correct, we are acting promptly to put right the situation that we inherited, which has contributed to the number of individuals required to make payments and the size of payments owed. About 4.3 million taxpayers will receive repayments between now and Christmas, while 1.4 million will be sent letters specifying how any underpayment has been calculated and how such payments can be reviewed.

To begin the process of reconciliation, HMRC has sent out the first set of taxpayer notifications to individuals throughout the UK. Those individuals who have overpaid will receive a full refund. Those who have underpaid will make additional payments through the PAYE system, provided that the payment due is less than £2,000. If the payment due is more than £2,000, HMRC will contact the individual to discuss the issue. All payments will begin next year and no immediate one-off payment will be required. HMRC will review the responses to the first set of notifications and make any changes needed to operational plans before going ahead with the rest. Staggering the process between now and Christmas will help to ensure that HMRC can deal with all queries efficiently.

The Exchequer is owed a total of approximately £2 billion. The fact that we were left with the worst deficit in peacetime history means that we simply cannot afford to write off all the underpayments. To ensure that the tax system is fair for everyone and that everyone pays their fair share, we are taking action to recoup the funds as painlessly as possible. In cases of genuine hardship, HMRC will allow payments to be spread across a period of three years. As was already the case, it will not pursue cases when the amount owed is less than £300—that is an increase from the previous threshold of £50—which applies to 40% of all underpayments. Of course, in specific circumstances, HMRC will consider writing off underpayments where it can be shown that HMRC was provided with all the information necessary—although I have to tell the House, from historical experience, that that is unlikely to apply to many cases. We do not want to build up people’s hopes unrealistically.

This Government understand that there is an urgent need to reform our PAYE system. In opposition and from day one in government, we have sought ways to improve it. The system is outdated, inefficient and burdensome to the Exchequer and taxpayer alike. We need PAYE to reflect the employment issues that the 21st century presents, and that will be a focus of reforms that we take forward as part of our wider strategy for reform.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for his technical explanation of the problem. I say at the outset that, given the scale of the problem—6 million people owing or owed perhaps £6 billion—it is disappointing that a Minister was brought here to make that statement and that the Government did not volunteer one earlier.

May I ask for more clarity? Is the number of people affected around the 6 million previously reported, and does the Minister discount the figure of 23 million reported in some of the press today? Is he confident that the previously reported figure for mispayments of £3.8 billion are correct, and does he give any credence to reports in the press today of an additional £3 billion of mispayment error? In short, I am trying to understand the full extent of the problem.

Can the Minister tell the House when those due to receive payments from the Revenue will get them? He confirmed the procedure for the Revenue requesting payment from those who have underpaid, and I am pleased that the offset is now £300, but can he give a cast-iron guarantee that those whose circumstances have changed dramatically—perhaps they have lost their job—will not be hounded for modest payments that they can no longer afford to make?

What action is the Minister taking to ensure that taxpayers are not now the target of fraudsters and scams? To get to the bottom of the matter, although he explained how the problem occurred, can he explain how long such errors have been occurring and when Ministers first knew about them? How could a system so flawed have been allowed to operate as it did? He spoke a lot about PAYE and his intention to reform it, but the public, employers and employees have a right to trust and believe that the PAYE system is reliable and works. What guarantees can he give us today that, after work is done on PAYE, it will be trusted and people’s family and household incomes and budgets will not be shredded, as they may be in the coming year, with demands for back tax because of miscalculations by the Revenue?

[Mr Gauke]

First, let I say that I am perfectly happy to answer these questions and I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the backlog of cases. That matter has been well known—I believe that he and I have debated it in the past, and a National Audit Office report published on 30 June gave the most recent update on the position. There is nothing new in the backlog that has emerged in recent weeks. There is a problem and we and HMRC are seeking to deal with it, but it is a problem that has existed for many years and we are critical of the previous Administration for the lack of progress in resolving it. A specific concern that has featured very recently is that it has emerged that, in the last two tax years, 4.3 million people have overpaid tax and 1.4 million have underpaid. Our aim is to send cheques to all those who have overpaid over the course of the rest of the year—in dramatic contrast with previous delays in addressing overpayments.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of changed circumstances, and it is absolutely right that HMRC considers hardship cases. That is why we have announced today that HMRC will show flexibility in some cases to spread payment over three years. As I said, we are not seeking to pursue the matter mindlessly, without taking account of individual circumstances, especially of those owing large amounts.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly raises the subject of fraudsters, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to reiterate that HMRC will not send e-mails to members of the public; communication will be in writing. Of course, people should be cautious.

How long has this problem persisted? The fundamental problem with PAYE, in the sense of there being too many open cases, and underpayments and overpayments, is a long-standing issue. In part it has to be recognised that, inherently in the PAYE system, there will sometimes be underpayments, because not all the information will be available in-year. For example, all the information about benefits in kind, company cars and so on, will not necessarily be available to HMRC or to employers. That will come to light at the end of the year, and then there will be a need for reconciliation, but that problem has always existed.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked how long Ministers have been aware of the problem. This Minister has been aware of a problem with PAYE since day one, and that is one reason why we made proposals for reform when in opposition.

The hon. Gentleman asked also about future reform. It is important that there is trust in the PAYE system, and it is right to say that in 85% of cases PAYE is correct in-year, but there are still problems, and we are consulting on proposals so that information is more up-to-date—if you like, so that it is real-time information. That means that HMRC will be able to respond to changed conditions much more quickly, and that we will have a system that is fit for the 21st century, in which people move around, change jobs and have multiple sources of income. We think that that is the direction in which we need to move.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Is it not rather revealing that this question was not tabled by the Labour party, which presided over such a decrepit system for so long? Does not the sheer number of incorrect payments illustrate the need to move to a system that reflects modern working and allows tax payments in real time, rather than on the basis of either guesswork in advance of the tax year or reconciliation a year or two later?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the Government, we are seeking to address the short-term issue, which is the overpayments and underpayments. We cannot just brush them to one side or park them for another year; we need to address them. However, we must also look at the longer-term solution, and that, as my hon. Friend rightly says, means moving towards a much more up-to-date system so that the information is more up-to-date and we are able to respond accordingly.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I understand that tax experts were briefed last week and told that a small number of notifications would be sent out in the next few weeks as the start of a process over the coming months, so why was the House not told, still less the public, what was intended? Why did HMRC’s website initially say absolutely nothing at all? Why has that arrangement, which was set out to a few experts last week, apparently now been abandoned and replaced, if we are to believe the reports over the weekend, with a headlong rush, whereby 6 million new calculations will be sent out in the next few weeks? Where is the plan for handling that huge exercise?

The Minister will have seen the questions that I tabled yesterday, but let me put four of them to him specifically. He has told us that HMRC will consider writing off demands when taxpayers can demonstrate that they provided all the necessary information to calculate their tax correctly. What exactly will they have to show, and how can they do so? If a problem arises because the employer, rather than the employee, has made a mistake, can he confirm that the employer will be held liable for the tax that is due?

Crucially, if people are required to pay more tax for a past year, their net income for that year will be reduced. In many cases, that will mean that they would have been entitled to more benefits—pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit—than they were actually paid. Can the Minister confirm that the rule will be changed so that those higher amounts will be paid to those individuals or offset against the extra tax that is due?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that HMRC call-response times have become much worse over the past few months, with many more people not being able to get through. Can the Minister confirm that the deadline for tax credit renewals has been extended from 31 August as a result? Clearly, sending out all those notifications will hugely increase the demand on those call centres, so how will that extra demand be managed? The press reports all refer to tax paid over the past two years. Does the Minister intend that, in due course, HMRC will look at earlier periods as well, or is the exercise limited to those two years?

Of course, it is a good thing that the previous Government’s investment has provided a system that is better able, in particular, to keep track of tax obligations, when people change their jobs or have multiple sources of income, but it is the Minister’s job now to ensure that the extra information that he has is used fairly.

[Mr Gauke]

I think we now know why Labour Members did not table an urgent question on this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman asked many questions—although there was not a word of apology for a tax system that is clearly encountering some difficulties—and I will endeavour to answer them all. First, there has been no change of plan. We have pursued the same proposal all along, namely to write to 45,000 to 50,000 taxpayers. We will use the information and the lessons learned from this relatively small sample to guide how correspondence will be undertaken with the remaining taxpayers affected. Let me reassure him that his fears about that are wrong. He also expressed concern about the public not being informed about the exercise, but we made great efforts to inform them over the weekend immediately after the decision was taken to proceed with writing those first letters to affected taxpayers.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to a concession that may be available, and he may recall that the A19 concession is available in circumstances where all the information has been provided to HMRC and it has had the opportunity to address it. We have looked into this. The A19 concession, which is well established—he will remember it from his time in the Treasury—does not apply that often in practice, and I do not want people to build up their hopes that it will offer some kind of panacea; that would be unfair on taxpayers.

The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether employers have made mistakes. In some circumstances, employers will have made the mistake that caused the overpayment or underpayment, but the principle remains the same—we have to collect the right amount of tax.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about means-tested benefits. In some cases, because net income was higher in a previous year, certain means-tested benefits would not have been available in that year, so sums are now having to be paid back. In those particular cases where tax underpayments are being recovered through the tax coding system, the corresponding fall in the net income for the taxpayer will increase the availability of means-tested benefits in that relevant year.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the extension of tax credit renewals’ deadline, and I can confirm that it has been extended to provide additional time for claims. I have to point out to him, however, that the idea that call centres are under strain and that it is difficult to get through to HMRC is not entirely a new phenomenon: it is a long-standing problem. Let me take this opportunity to say to taxpayers who are understandably concerned about their position that they should wait until they receive a letter before contacting HMRC, as only then will it be able to deal effectively and efficiently with their concerns. Nevertheless, he raises a legitimate issue about call centres. We are providing additional staff—there is additional capacity now and there will be after the tax credit renewal process has been completed. We are taking steps to ensure that HMRC is able to deal effectively with those calling in with concerns.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the Minister is trying to help the House with informative replies, but I am afraid they are rather prolix and they need to get shorter.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government ignored not only the crippling budget deficit but the serious problem with PAYE? That is evidence as to why the coalition’s setting up of the Office of Tax Simplification is so important.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the stresses and strains that HMRC has had to deal with has been the complexity of the tax system. If we can address that, we can establish a simpler PAYE system and reduce the demands placed on HMRC so that it can focus on these very matters.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It would be a disservice to the many millions of people affected—certainly the 1.4 million who are being chased for repayments—if we allowed this matter to be passed over in gaining party political points on either side. [Laughter.] It is not amusing to the 1.4 million people. The report says that it was the Minister who noticed the disparity in the figures and asked for a review. The result is sad, but I commend him for uncovering the problem. This issue raises important questions, and that is why party political point scoring would be wrong. It is not the first debacle from this department. As the Minister looks into it, can the House expect some resignations or disciplinary action in respect of the highly paid chairman and chief executive and board?

[Mr Gauke]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has consistently raised concerns about HMRC. In my view, we need to focus on moving forward. The fundamental problem is the PAYE system and the inability, over many years, to bring it into the 21st century. In my view, the days of Treasury Ministers throwing staplers around should be past. We need to work with HMRC constructively to ensure that we have an improvement in our tax system.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

While recognising that the Government had to deal with this inherited problem, will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Revenue will assist those who have a reasonable basis for showing that they provided the necessary information in good time and that they will not face obstruction or lack of information? Will he assure me that these efforts will not detract from the measures that need to be taken to deal with those who actively evade their taxes, unlike most of the people this problem will affect?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise those points. It is right that HMRC is sympathetic to those in genuine hardship, and that should not obscure the very important work that it does in tackling tax evasion.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Minister make sure that there are sufficient staff who are able to help vulnerable people unexpectedly facing big bills, with face-to-face discussions about how to deal with that? Last Sunday in my advice surgery, I spoke to a gentleman who is a courier earning £220 a week and has no bank account, but owes £18,000 in back tax because he has constantly had letters that he does not understand referring to extra charges, interest payments and so on. He has not been able to find anyone who can speak to him about the problem. Will the Minister ensure that there are enough staff to speak to people?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that question. It is absolutely right, particularly where those larger sums are involved, that HMRC deals with people sympathetically, and in order for it to do so there needs to be proper communication. That is a challenge for HMRC, but it is absolutely right that it focuses its resources on this matter.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

A couple of years ago, HMRC lost my personal information and that of 25 million other people on the child benefit disc, and in my constituency surgeries each week, HMRC problems consistently generate the most casework. In opening the boot—or the bonnet—of the car that is the computer system at HMRC, what other problems is the new mechanic going to find?

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC has faced many problems and challenges over recent years: a merger, coping with a complicated tax credits system, and a number of other issues. We need to be realistic about what can be done with our tax system—tax simplification is indeed important—and allow HMRC to focus on its key concerns and do the very important job that it has to do.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Can the Minister outline the costs of this entire operation, and may I endorse the call for people who have underpaid to have the opportunity of face-to-face meetings if there are big demands on them, so that their cases can be heard properly? Can he indicate whether interest will be paid on top of the money to be repaid to those who have overpaid?

[Mr Gauke]

On the last point, yes, interest is applicable and a statutory duty. We are not in a position to assess the costs to HMRC. It is worth putting the matter in perspective by saying that most people have had their tax calculated accurately through the PAYE system, and that more will receive repayments than will have to pay extra. People should wait until they receive their letters. It is worth pointing out also that the problem of underpayments has existed in previous years, and many hundreds of thousands of people have had to repay tax through the PAYE system, so the phenomenon is not entirely new, although the scale is somewhat greater now.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Have the appropriate risk assessments been undertaken of other key HMRC systems that were set up under the previous Labour Government to ensure that we do not have to clean up other messes such as this in future?

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC is examining potential risks on an ongoing basis.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate the Minister on moving from the £50 limit to a £300 limit? That will be very helpful. However, many thousands of the 1.4 million people will have changed circumstances. They may now be unemployed, have mortgages or be on short-time working. Will that be taken into consideration? For ever the pragmatist, may I suggest that a direct line be set up for MPs? I imagine that I will have to put a revolving door in my constituency surgery.

[Mr Gauke]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about a direct line, and I will certainly put that to HMRC management. I reiterate that we accept that there may be hardship, and I am sure his constituents will welcome the announcement today about repayments potentially being spread over three years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matthew Elliott. [Interruption.] I mean Matthew Hancock. Tax was on my mind.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister said that one reason why some payments will have to be so big is that there has not been a reconciliation for two years. Can he explain why moneys were not required back from taxpayers up and down the country last year in the months running up to the general election?

[Mr Gauke]

My blood ran slightly cold for a moment when I thought that the TaxPayers Alliance had managed to get in here, but I know that my hon. Friend is a good representative for taxpayers. As for last year, it is fair to say that the introduction of the computer system was a relevant issue, but none the less the lack of a reconciliation has exacerbated the problem. The fact that nothing was done last year prior to the election has left us with a bigger problem this year. He can draw his own conclusions.

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock); he is unmistakable.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I ask the Minister whether these circumstances have given the Government any further thought about plans to cut the future capacity of the Revenue and Customs? If he is giving positive consideration to the very good suggestion that there be a helpline for MPs, may I suggest, since many of the people affected will not have accountants to hand or be able to go to them, that it be available also to citizens advice bureaux, which will get an awful lot of inquiries?

[Mr Gauke]

That is an operational matter that HMRC will need to consider, but I will discuss it with senior management. As far as staffing is concerned, there will be a spending review announcement on 20 October, and any announcements on HMRC’s budgets will be made at that time.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The size of the problem, the number of people affected and the amount of money involved make it a real tragedy for this country. Some 2,000 of my constituents, and the constituents of each and every one of us, will have to stump up more money that is not planned for at a time when money is tight for everyone. May I urge Ministers to have compassion for those who find themselves in a difficult spot, and a review of HMRC, particularly its difficulties in operating computers?

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I confirm that HMRC will consider the matter sympathetically and will have flexibility to spread payments over up to three years.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was a bit disappointed by the Minister being a little dismissive of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) when he suggested that it was now getting harder to get through to HMRC. My experience, and that of many MPs, is that when people try to get through to tax credits staff, they just get an answer machine saying that they should phone back another day. They cannot even leave a message.

The situation is getting worse, and although I do not want to blame the Minister for that, may I urge him to consider more than just additional call centres? He should also consider the possibility of providing not just a helpline but more support for bodies such as Citizens Advice and other information agencies. Does he agree that there is a danger of scam e-mails, with people trying to take advantage of those who will be in a difficult position, and that people will need somewhere reputable to get information and support so that others cannot try to get money out of their suffering?

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate that additional resources will be provided for call centres—I believe there will be about 20% extra staff by the end of the month, with contingency for more if needed. HMRC is focusing on that. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about tackling fraudsters, and we can take back to our constituents the message that they should be wary, particularly of e-mails. HMRC will not e-mail people about this matter.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

A lot has been said during these exchanges, and it may be confusing to some members of the public. May I ask my hon. Friend to give some ABC points to members of the public who have been affected or feel that they may have been, so that it can be recorded properly on tonight’s news?

[Mr Gauke]

First, I would say that people should wait until they receive a letter. When they receive one, if they are asked to pay money back they should go through the details carefully, and if they are concerned at that point, they should contact HMRC. They can be reassured that we are not demanding immediate payment, as there will be an opportunity either to spread it out over future months and years or at least to talk to HMRC about the details.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

How does the Minister respond to the reports in the national newspapers that certain accountants are suggesting that there is no need to pay back the money, and to the confusion that that will undoubtedly cause many people? He mentioned flexibility in the response to the problem, but are not fairness and consistency also very important, to ensure that everyone is treated exactly the same?

[Mr Gauke]

It is right that people pay the tax that is due. I have read the newspaper reports, and it is right to say that a concession is available in some circumstances, but I have been straightforward in making it clear that we do not believe that it will be widespread. People should pay the tax that is due, and given the state of the public finances, we are certainly not in a position to wave goodbye to £2 billion. That would not be fair on those who have paid the correct amount of tax.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has said that the NPS—the national insurance and PAYE service—system is now up to date and working, within reason, but he has also admitted that PAYE is a 1940s system and not up to date. A consultation is currently going on and is due to shut in about two weeks. One of the problems that he identified was that information can be up to 18 months old. When will we reach the stage of real-time collection, and if it does come in, how and by whom will it be administered?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right that we are consulting on moving towards a real-time system. I do not pretend for a moment that it is an overnight solution, but we are examining it so that over the next few years, we can move to a system that gives HMRC, which will of course continue to administer it, information that is up to date and adjustable in-year. That will ensure that we get a much greater level of accuracy in our tax system.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Like all hon. Members, the Minister will have constituents visiting him who have underpaid tax and who will feel that that is no fault of their own, and yet, under the system as it exists, they will be expected to pay back in full. Has he given any consideration to recognising clearly in the amount that must be paid back that our constituents have acted in good faith and that the fault lies elsewhere?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said earlier, concession A19 is for taxpayers who have acted in good faith when HMRC has had an opportunity to respond. However, I should also make the point that PAYE has always involved circumstances in which information comes to light after the tax year is completed and an adjustment must be made. That has happened throughout the existence of PAYE, but it has increased over the years as working patterns have changed, which is why we need to look at more fundamental reform of PAYE.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Following earlier suggestions of hotlines, what advice would the Minister give to my constituents who feel that they might be affected, but who do not want simply to wait for a letter in their post?

[Mr Gauke]

I urge them to wait. I understand the frustration, but if we are to provide support to people efficiently and effectively, it is better to wait. Limited support can be provided until that letter arrives, so I urge his constituents to be patient.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It would seem that the left hand of HMRC does not know of the information held in the right hand. What assurance can the Minister give to members of the public that such information can be better co-ordinated to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. To be fair, the NPS system brings the information together, but unfortunately, that has highlighted more difficult cases. In fact, as we move forward with the NPS system and—potentially—further reforms, HMRC should have more accurate information and so be able accurately to assess the level of tax due.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am tempted to ask whether the person who designed the computer system for HMRC is the same as the person who designed the computer system for claiming MPs’ expenses, but I shall resist, and instead ask the Minister this: why has he alighted on the period of only three years for people to make payments? Is it not the case that people on very low incomes may need longer if they are hit with particularly large bills?

[Mr Gauke]

The period of three years is one in which we have confidence that HMRC will be able to address the matter administratively. Beyond that, certain technical matters would need to be thought through. However, we are confident that HMRC is capable of addressing the matter over three years.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the position of front-line staff in HMRC centres up and down the country is important? They do a stressful job at the best of times and regularly deal with frustrated taxpayers on the phone, but with the new problem, I am sure the Minister agrees that the staff’s position needs to be looked at. A statement of support for them from the Minister would be welcome.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. Some comments have suggested that the situation is the fault of HMRC staff who cannot add up, but those comments are ill-informed. The truth is that HMRC staff are committed to doing a good job. They are battling with a difficult system, and I give them my support. As a Minister, I have visited many HMRC offices, and I appreciate the hard work, enthusiasm and dedication of HMRC staff.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the head of HMRC was instead the finance director of a financial services company that was seeking to claw back that sort of money from customers, he would be obliged to take himself off to Canary Wharf and satisfy the Financial Services Authority that he had complied with the requirements to treat customers fairly? Is the Minister satisfied that the mechanisms that he has outlined, including the period for repayment and other things, would satisfy the same approach that the FSA would take in relation to a private company?

[Mr Gauke]

It is right that HMRC treats customers fairly, but I reiterate that it is customary with the PAYE system that, at times, underpayments need to be recovered. However, it is right that HMRC should do so in a sensitive manner.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Minister is responding excellently to the question, but I must say to him gently that it would have been better had he made a statement rather than being asked to come to the House.

PAYE has always been a collection of money on account towards the final tax liability, but the Minister has not made it clear to me whether a great number of people are affected by the current situation just because people’s lifestyles have changed. Was there also an error in the basic collection by the Revenue of the correct information given by taxpayers?

[Mr Gauke]

Our understanding is that the fundamental problem is changing working practices—that is the long-term issue. Of course, there may be circumstances in which HMRC has made errors, but changing working practices is the essential problem. It is also the case that the new computer system more accurately and rigorously picks up problems than happened before. That is why we have seen the increase in underpayments and overpayments. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there have always been underpayments and overpayments under the payment-on-account PAYE system.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. The relationship between taxpayer and tax collector is extremely important. Many of my constituents find the fact that it is extremely difficult to get through to the Revenue at the moment very stressful, which they must do through no fault of their own, as other hon. Members have said. Will the Government look at that relationship and ensure that it is valued, so that both HMRC staff, who do an excellent job, and its customers, are treated the same way as we would expect in any public service?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those points. As I said, additional staff are provided to call centres in an attempt to address this matter. HMRC is endeavouring to provide a good service to taxpayers, notwithstanding the difficulties of the circumstances.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Minister on taking prompt and appropriate action on this inherited fiasco? Much mention has been made of telephone hotlines and so on, but the vast majority of people who receive requests or demands for the return of unpaid tax will not have advisers or anyone to assist them. Will he make an effort to ensure that the letters that are sent to our constituents are in plain English and easy to understand, and that they contain appropriate calculations that the individual taxpayer can appreciate and understand, so that they can make their decisions without recourse to either MPs, tax advisers or accountants?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. As I said, HMRC has sent 45,000 to 50,000 letters. We will analyse the responses to those letters to see what can be done to ensure that there is as much clarity as possible in further letters.

Points of Order

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

13:18

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Health questions yesterday, the Health Secretary misrepresented my position on NHS Direct. He referred to a Department of Health press release dated 18 December 2009 and quoted partially from it to imply that he is simply implementing my plans. Let me quote a crucial sentence that he left out:

“111 will not replace…NHS Direct”.

By contrast, his Department’s press release of 29 August states:

“NHS 111 telephone number will eventually replace NHS Direct”.

That is a huge change of policy that affects thousands of staff in the NHS and, of course, millions of patients who rely upon the services of NHS Direct every year.

Is it in order for an announcement of that kind to made on the eve of a bank holiday weekend and for no written or oral statement to be made to the House? Will you, Mr Speaker, intervene in this matter to ensure that there is a detailed statement laying out the Government’s plans for NHS Direct, and do you agree that carrying on in that cavalier way is no way to run the NHS or to treat dedicated NHS staff?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The response is as follows. First, it is entirely a matter for the Government to choose the timing, and indeed for the most part, the location of statements that they wish to make. It may well be that Members are unhappy about the timing, but the timing itself was entirely legitimate and proper, so there was no cause for me to intervene on that account.

Secondly, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that in so far as he was—and remains—concerned that his position was misrepresented, the point that he has raised must constitute a point of debate rather than a point of order. He has now very forcefully placed on the record his own position for others to observe. I have a feeling that this very controversial subject, on which there are strong views, is one to which the House and individual Members will regularly return, and it is open to him to do so.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that you and the Serjeant at Arms have responsibility for the security and safety of Members of Parliament. Given that very serious allegations have been made against a parliamentary pass holder about the tapping of Members’ phones, will you consider whether that pass should be withdrawn until such time as investigations have been concluded, and will you therefore make a statement to the House, perhaps tomorrow before the debate requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) takes place?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is right about my responsibility and I understand his concern on this important issue. However, I must say to him that there is a long-standing and generally accepted practice that we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. In an attempt to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I may say that if he has a further and specific point that he wishes to raise with the Serjeant at Arms, it is proper for him to do so. It might be best for him to take the matter forward in that way. If he wishes to keep me abreast of developments outside of the Chamber, that is also an option open to him.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your earlier statement consequent on the application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), will there be an opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to confirm to the House whether Scotland Yard has identified them as persons of interest in the current News of the World investigation?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made a debating point and I have a feeling that he knows that that is what he has done. We shall leave it at that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your statement earlier and with the important debate on Afghanistan to be delayed, has there been any indication that the hours of the House will be altered tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. That is the simple answer to his question. It may not satisfy him, but that is the situation.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way in which Members who have waited a long time for the important debate on Afghanistan can stress to the Government, through you, that it would be iniquitous if the debate were to be cut short?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there is, and he knows it, because he has just taken advantage of the opportunity to relay it to those on the Treasury Bench and we are grateful to him.

Sex and Relationships Education

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:23

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide sex and relationships education to registered pupils; and for connected purposes.

As people say, “ And now for something completely different.” I first raised the issue of teenage pregnancy, which is a big problem in many constituencies, and of sex and relationships education some three or four years ago. I was then interviewed by an ITV journalist whose first question was “What is the nature of the problem with teenage pregnancy?” I explained, and his next question was, “And what causes teenage pregnancy?” I said, “Well, I’m not an expert, but I think it is something to do with sex.”

There are some very depressing facts on teenage pregnancy. In 2008, there were 41,325 conceptions to girls under the age of 18 and 7,577 to girls under the age of 16. Of the conceptions among girls under 18, 42.4% went on to have abortions. For the girls under 16, the figure was 52.9%. We would all agree that that is an unacceptable situation for our society. Even more distressing, in 2007, 369 girls under the age of 14 became pregnant.

The problem is writ large in many different ways. As someone who is deeply concerned about my constituents and the problem of long-term deprivation, I find it embarrassing that half of the conceptions by teenage girls occurred in the most deprived 20% of wards. Infant mortality among children born to teenage mums is 60% higher than it is for older mothers. Even more depressing, the daughters of teenage mothers are far more likely to go on to be teenage mums themselves. That means that in constituencies such as mine teenage pregnancy and poverty tend to be handed down from generation to generation, as inevitably as a title or seat in the House of Lords used to be. I want to see an end to that.

The most depressing moment that I have had in recent years in discussing this issue was in my constituency, when I met a brave and wonderful young girl. I hope that she will be a wonderful mother and have a fulfilling life. When I first met her, she was 16 and was pregnant for the second time. The first time, she was made pregnant when she was raped by her father at the age of 13.

We know that teenage pregnancy is an enormous problem across the country. The map of teenage pregnancy reflects the map of deprivation. We should be embarrassed by the fact that the international comparisons are terrible. We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe—not just slightly, but by far. It is five times higher than in the Netherlands, three times higher than in France and twice as high as it is in Germany. We should do everything that we possibly can to change that.

Some 75% of sexually active 16 to 25-year-olds do not use condoms, and the number of sexually transmitted infections is steadily and dramatically increasing. Young people represent only 12% of the population, but account for nearly half of all sexually transmitted infections. HIV infection has trebled over the past 10 years, with 7,000 new diagnoses every year—and many thousands probably go undiagnosed. In addition, many schools still experience a high level of homophobic bullying, with youngsters suffering and going on to have major mental health problems. Some end up committing suicide. The incidence of suicide among homosexual pupils is six times higher than it is among heterosexuals. In 1990, only 10.3% of women had had their first sexual encounter under the age of 16, but in 2000 that had risen to 20.4%, which is another depressing statistic.

Some Members may say that all that was the fault of the previous Government—[Interruption.] I can see a couple of heads nodding. But actually the dramatic increase in teenage pregnancy rates happened in the 1980s and the early 1990s. I do not wish to attribute that to any particular Government or political party, but I simply make the point that now more teenage mothers are in education, employment or training and the figures have fallen in the last 10 years. They have not fallen enough, or anywhere near as much as we wanted them to fall, but they have fallen by 13.3%.

There is no point in being judgmental about this. I have met teenage mums who have been wonderful mothers. They have triumphed over the odds and gone to provide successful careers for themselves and their children. Likewise, I have met many teachers who teach sex and relationships education in school and who do it wonderfully, superbly, including in many faith schools up and down the land.

The judgmental attitude of the past, which meant that girls who got pregnant were thrown out of their homes and ignored by society—everything was brushed under the carpet—has not done us any favours. There is one big difference between this country and European countries with lower rates of teenage pregnancy: all the other countries provide statutory sex and relationships education to every single child from an early age. That is particularly the case in the Netherlands, which has the lowest rate in Europe and by far the best sex and relationships education.

According to reports in recent years on SRE in schools, a remarkably high number of girls get to their first period without understanding what is happening to their body because they have not had any SRE. Far too many children say that they would much prefer their first talk about this to be with their parents but that it is far too embarrassing and difficult for that to happen, and far too many say that the only SRE they had was at the age of 15 when they were told how to put a condom on, in some schools, a banana, and in other schools, a broomstick.

If we start too late, when youngsters are already having sex, we have already lost. We need to ensure that every child in the country has good SRE. Schools should not be able to opt out entirely from providing it, because every child should have the opportunity. Of course, if parents want to withdraw their own child, and if the child does not want to attend, they should be able to do so. That is right and proper, and my Bill would provide for it. However, I do not think that we should have whole schools opting out, either because the governors refuse to contemplate it, or because they are just too lily-livered to ensure that a proper curriculum is in place. That is why I believe that there should be statutory provision. This provision was to have been part of the Bill that came before the House before the general election, but there was a dispute and consequently these elements of the Bill were removed. However, I very much hope that hon. Members this afternoon will give the opportunity for the Bill to proceed.

I am thoroughly aware that just improving SRE in schools will not transform every aspect of the problems I have been referring to. Under-age drinking is still one of the main reasons a lot of young girls get pregnant, because all the good intentions that a couple might have at six o’clock on a Friday evening, when they are completely sober, might completely and utterly disappear when they are blotto at 11.30 pm. We need a better youth service so that young people are engaged with responsible adults who can give them a strong sense of their own self-confidence and self-worth, so that they can make better decisions in life.

In addition, it is important that we have proper early intervention, particularly for girls who are under-achieving in school. So often, young girls, when they feel that they are not loved at home or doing well at school, will almost, in the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, make a career decision to get pregnant. We should be ensuring that there are better alternatives for those girls, so that they can make better choices for themselves and their children in life. I hope that the House will agree this afternoon that, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education,

“it is vital that all children have high-quality sex and relationships education”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 656.]

13:33

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I want to make it clear that I do not propose to press this to a Division, but I give advance notice to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his hon. Friends that there are many in the House, not just on the Government Benches but on both sides, who will fundamentally fight his proposals, because we believe that they are the wrong thing for this country. I believe that primarily because this aspect of sexual and relationships education is the fundamental, primary domain of parents within families.

The hon. Gentleman might not have intended to be disingenuous, but it simply is not true that there is not an obligation for elements of sex education to be present within our education system. It exists at secondary school level. One of the things that concerns me about his proposal is that it would introduce the concept of sex education for all key stages, which would include, of course, five and six-year-olds. I have a further concern. As is appropriate, curriculums are developed by school governors, with teachers and parental involvement. That is important. However, his proposal, which suggests a one-size-fits-all approach—imposing something from the centre—goes against the current thinking, which is about local schools knowing best, in conjunction with parents in particular. It is imperative that parents continue to be able to exercise the right to withdraw their children from lessons that they do not believe to be in their children’s interests, and if they would rather teach SRE themselves. He added the proviso that children should be able to make that decision for themselves, but I believe that parents should be able to override them until they become of an age when they are legally entitled to do other things themselves.

This imposition on primary schools is fundamentally wrong. Putting it on the statute book is heavy-handed and belies the fact that secondary schools already undertake elements of this education. The constant approach of getting the state to undermine and supersede parental authority is fundamentally flawed. What has been the impact of sex education? A campaigner for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said:

“There have been a large number of studies about the impact of sex education on abortion rates and pregnancy rates, and these frequently tend to show they are not having the kind of impact that the family planning specialists want. They mainly make us feel good that we’re educating people more thoroughly, but they do not seem to have much impact on the abortion rate.”

Let us go further. The SHARE scheme in Scotland conducted a test across a wide number of schools using a well-documented control group. It is probably the most carefully designed and rigorously tested such programme in the United Kingdom to date, and at the end of it, the researchers concluded:

“This specially designed sex education programme did not reduce conceptions or terminations…compared with conventional provision. The lack of effect was not due to quality of delivery.”

They also said that

“complementary intervention should be suggested”,

including socio-economic interventions and parental influence. To be honest, we do not need a big research programme to know that parents are the best people to discuss with their children the concept of sex and relationships education. Dare I say it—I am not trying to be flippant—but perhaps for teenagers the very fact that their parents had sex to have them puts off the discussion. Perhaps that was the case when the hon. Gentleman was growing up. However, we should be braver than that.

In the evidence that the hon. Gentleman cited, he mentioned many different countries, such as Holland, which has invested in sex education. However, he might also have seen the article in The Times that read:

“The Dutch Government still penalises single mothers under 18, who are expected to live with their parents if they become pregnant. Until six years ago the Government gave them no financial support.”

That might be an example of socio-economic intervention.

The hon. Gentleman failed to mention Italy, which also has low levels of teenage pregnancy, but does not invest significantly in school sex education, so we should not follow the example of the Netherlands and other countries he cites, or indeed France where the abortion limit is at 12 weeks, and suggest that sex education from the age of six is the right way to reduce sexual intervention. Dare I say it, but in the last so many years when sex education has been the norm, the great experiment of the ‘60s—

[Chris Bryant]

It has not been the norm.

[Dr Coffey]

Oh, it certainly has, yet the percentage of people having sex under the legal age limit has doubled. That is not a record that this country should be proud of. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I am not condemning teenage pregnancy—far from it. I do not think that the age of somebody always reflects whether they are a good mother. However, the fundamental principle is that families and parents know best, not the Government, so we will oppose this Bill fundamentally, every hour, every day.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Bryant, Ms Diane Abbott, Sir Peter Soulsby, Jessica Morden, Nick Smith, Katy Clark, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Luciana Berger, Karl Turner, Heidi Alexander, and Alex Cunningham present the Bill.

Chris Bryant accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed (Bill 69).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[4th Allotted Day]

Crime and Policing

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

13:40

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the Government’s failure to prioritise the safety of communities by not protecting central Government funding for the police; notes the conclusion of the Audit Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary that any budget reduction over 12 per cent. will reduce frontline policing; pays tribute to the police and other agencies for achieving a 43 per cent. reduction in crime, including a 42 per cent. cut in violent crime, since 1997, and for maintaining that reduction through last year’s recession; notes that public perception of anti-social behaviour is at its lowest level since it was recorded in the British Crime Survey of 2001-02; further notes that the previous Government set out plans in its Policing White Paper to drive down policing costs whilst maintaining core funding; and condemns the Government’s policy of reducing police numbers, restricting police powers and imposing elected commissioners to replace police authorities, thus condemning the police service to unnecessary, unwelcome and costly re-structuring at a time when their focus should be on maintaining the fall in crime and anti-social behaviour.

The previous Government were the first since the end of world war one to leave office with a lower level of crime and disorder than when they came into power. In a previous debate when I mentioned that fact, the Home Secretary challenged it by rather bizarrely mentioning Michael Howard—now the noble Lord Howard of Lympne—who may have been many things, but was not a Government. Although it is true that the noble Lord Howard—recently much derided by his former colleagues—was the only Conservative Home Secretary in 18 years to preside over any reduction in crime at all, it was a modest reduction, to 4.6 million crimes a year, compared with 2.3 million in 1979, when the Conservatives were elected. In other words, without Lord Howard’s contribution, crime under the Tories would have more than doubled; thanks to him, it merely doubled, with violent crime rising by 168% and robbery by 405%.

The Conservative party that presided over that truly miserable record refuses to acknowledge the tremendous work of the police and other agencies in tackling its legacy. The Conservatives can no longer deny that crime has fallen, including violent crime, so they resort to saying that crime is still too high—and they are right: it is. But when they were in power, the chances of being a victim of crime were 40%; now it is 21.5%, the lowest since records began. The latest statistics, published by the new Government in July and covering 2009-10, confirm the trend. Both recorded and surveyed crime continued to fall, by around 9%, through the deepest global recession in the post-war era, thus effectively destroying the theory of Lord Howard’s fiercest critic, and probably his most feeble predecessor, the current Justice Secretary, that crime fell under Labour only because the economy improved.

The purpose of today’s debate is to set out why that record of success is being jeopardised and to highlight three specific areas: first, the Home Secretary’s failure to stand up to the Treasury and insist that policing and counter-terrorism be prioritised in the comprehensive spending review; secondly, her determination to restrict the ability of the police and other agencies to use DNA, CCTV and, now we discover, antisocial behaviour orders to deter and catch miscreants; and thirdly, the dogmatic pursuit of the abolition of police authorities and their replacement by a single elected commissioner.

In respect of the CSR, we know that some Secretaries of State are arguing vociferously for their Departments, but the one with the best argument is apparently content to take a 25% to 40% cut in her budget. Before Government Members seek to intervene on me with their Chief Whip crib sheets—subtitled “Patrick McLoughlin’s route to a ministerial career”—let me say that if Labour had won the general election, the Home Office budget would have been cut and the police would have had to make savings. That is not a matter for conjecture: £1.3 billion of savings that we would have implemented by 2013 are itemised in last year’s pre-Budget report, the Budget, last November’s policing White Paper and other public documents.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On that issue, I have read the wording of the motion carefully, in which Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition make the point that it is the Government’s deliberate policy to reduce police numbers, which is not the case. I simply make the point that I made before, in the debate in July, that the shadow Home Secretary specifically said on 20 April that he could not guarantee that there would not be a reduction in police numbers. Does he stand by those comments in the election campaign, and does he not see that even a fair-minded person would think his contribution today just slightly disingenuous?

[Alan Johnson]

I knew that that one would be on the crib sheet. Of course it was right to say honestly to the public that no Home Secretary could guarantee that police numbers would not fall by a single police officer. The number of police and recruitment for the police are matters for chief constables and police authorities. What we guaranteed, as I will explain in a second, was that the central funding that the Home Office provides—which has led to the recruitment of 17,000 more police officers and 16,000 police community support officers—would continue to be provided, index-linked, because we considered crime and policing to be a priority.

The savings that we set out included £70 million in reduced police overtime, £75 million from business support and back-office functions, £400 million from procurement and IT, and £500 million from process improvement. My deal with the previous Chancellor—the one who did produce progressive Budgets—was to prioritise the police and security services by maintaining the 2010 level of central funding necessary for the continued employment of record police numbers, thus reducing the Home Office budget by around 12%, or £1.3 billion,without hitting front-line policing.

We have had a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission endorsing that approach. The report, “Policing in an age of austerity”, concluded that

“cost cutting and improvements in productivity could, if relentlessly pursued, generate a saving of 12% in central government funding …while maintaining police availability.”

This is therefore not an argument about whether there need to be cuts to the police budget over the next four years; it is an argument about a cut of 12% or, as the Chancellor announced on 22 June, a cut of 25% for the Home Office, which he describes as an unprotected Department.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I thought of this question myself. On Monday I met the chief constable of Kent, who was concerned about the lack of information coming out of the Home Office. I do not know whether things were done in the same way when my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary, but although the Policing Minister said on Monday that we had to wait until 25 October for the comprehensive spending review, chief officers are now having to prepare their budgets without knowing even a ballpark figure for the cuts. Would it not be helpful if the Government could give an indication as to how much the figure could be, so that chief officers could prepare for what is inevitable?

[Alan Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. I do not think that the collegiate approach in this House has stretched as far as Members on the Opposition Benches getting the Government Chief Whip’s crib sheet. I know that that was his own question, although I suppose that it might have come from our crib sheet. The issue is this: we would not have revealed before a CSR what the settlement was. That is why it is difficult to itemise the savings in advance of a CSR. What can be done—and what we did with the police in the policing White Paper—is to identify those areas that I have mentioned and ensure that the police and the security services understand that we were prioritising police and security. Also, in this year Parliament, including those now on the Government Benches, approved the allocation of funding, knowing that there would be another pay increase in the three-year police pay deal. What has happened now is that the Government have not only demanded more savings this year, despite having to meet that pay increase, but frozen the precept. The police are in a far worse position, including the chief constable of Kent, than they would have been had we been in government.

It is extraordinary that the Government should refuse to add policing to health, education and international development as an area requiring special consideration. The Chancellor is fond of quoting Canada as a precedent for the kind of savage cuts that he heralded in the emergency Budget, but the Canadian Government were not foolish enough to slash police budgets. Expenditure on policing fell by just 0.1% in the years following the Canadian Star Chamber cuts, and then rose steadily thereafter. The number of police officers dipped by at most 3%. In this country, the budget will be slashed by at least 25%, which means a cut in police numbers of between 35,000, as estimated by Professor Talbot, the respected criminologist at Manchester university, and 60,000, according to the magazine Jane’s Police Review, which took what I hope is the exaggerated view that the cuts might amount to 40%.

The HMIC report means that there can be no further pretence that front-line policing can somehow emerge unscathed from this kind of budgetary carnage. As well as failing to protect central allocations, on which police forces rely for between 50% and 90% of their funding, the Government have placed a two-year moratorium on any increases in the local precepts. So much for localism. As a result, plans are already being drawn up in every police force throughout the country to cut the number of officers, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. The 16,000 police community support officers, who are popular with the public and central to neighbourhood policing, are bound to go if there are cuts of 25%. As civilian staff, they are more easy to dispose of, which is why police forces such as Durham have already put every PCSO under notice of redundancy.

There was nothing about this in the coalition partners’ manifestos. Indeed, the Lib Dems, who believed that this country was under-policed, were promising to use the money saved by scrapping identity cards to recruit 3,000 additional police officers. We now have the Government’s own figures for the amount of money that will be saved by scrapping ID cards. I will willingly take an intervention from anyone on the Lib Dem Benches if they want to tell me how many police officers that equates to. Is it 3,000? No. Is it 2,500, 2,000, 1,000, 500, 200? No. If we used all the money saved by scrapping ID cards, we would get 117 extra officers, not 3,000. Would that we could look forward to any increase in officer numbers at all. It is now likely that the Lib Dems will preside over the loss of 3,000 officers every four months over the next four years.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the contribution of the Liberal Democrats. Many people have wondered whether this Government would be any different if the Lib Dems were not involved, but are we perhaps now starting to see how they are involved? When we look at the cuts in policing, the decision to put yobbos on to the street rather than in prison, and they ways in which the Government are on the side of the criminals rather than of the police, we can see that the lily-livered Liberals are indeed making their contribution to government, just as people were beginning to wonder what they were doing.

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. During the general election, the Conservatives and Labour were united in saying, “Don’t let the Lib Dems anywhere near crime or national security—or immigration, for that matter.” We remember some of their policies in that area. I do not blame the Lib Dems at all for the Government’s policy on crime and policing. The Home Secretary has been careful to have only one Lib Dem in her team, and she is a very good Minister, but the Government have not allowed her anywhere near the important stuff in the Home Office. This policy cannot be described as a coalition approach. Certainly, the decision not to prioritise the police in the comprehensive spending review was made by the Conservatives.

I have mentioned the likely loss of police officers over the next four years. Let us have no doubt that cuts of this magnitude will also put national security at risk, as the most senior counter-terrorism officer in the UK has made clear. Insufficient resources will inevitably lead to the closure of regional counter-terrorism units, to fewer surveillance teams to monitor suspects, and to a reduction in the number of police officers who work full time on counter-terrorism.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Was my right hon. Friend concerned about yesterday’s announcement of the abolition of the Audit Commission? We are going to see massive cuts across the board, and the Audit Commission normally monitors, evaluates and supports the performance of the police. The cuts will have differential impacts, and in Swansea, 38% of the people are in public sector employment. They face massive cuts, and unemployment and education cuts are growing, which is fuelling more localised crime. Is he worried that we will not have the tools to assess what is happening, to enable the Government to channel resources to where they are most needed?

[Alan Johnson]

That is certainly an issue, particularly in the light of the HMIC-Audit Commission’s joint report. We must take a rigorous approach to its conclusion that, if the Government cut more than 12%, front-line policing will be affected. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Audit Commission has been done away with; I hope that HMIC will not come next.

As police numbers reduce, so will their powers. I shall deal with DNA and CCTV in a moment.

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

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to other matters, may I tell him that I have been listening carefully to the points that he has made about cuts? He knows full well that his Government had pledged to make 20% cuts in public sector spending. If they were not going to occur in the Home Office, where were they going to be?

[Alan Johnson]

When we were in government, we decided to pick the priority Departments, and the chosen areas were health, education, international development and crime and policing. It is extraordinary that the present Government—[Interruption.] Hang on! I am answering the question. It is incredible that the present Government believe that international development, health and, to a certain extent, education must be prioritised, and that they are more important than crime and policing. Quite frankly, I can say as a former Health Secretary that we did not commit to increase the health budget above the rate of inflation. That budget was £110 billion. I went from the Department of Health, which had a £110 billion budget, to the Home Office, which had a budget of about £10 billion. We would have saved £73 billion; we would not have gone for a saving of £113 billion, which Boris Johnson described only yesterday as cutting too savagely and too deeply. It is a central feature of this argument that the Government are going too far with the cuts and that they are failing to treat crime and policing as a priority in the comprehensive spending review, even though it is a priority for constituents everywhere.

During the summer, the Home Secretary made a speech saying that we needed to “move beyond the ASBO”. I want to make two things clear. First, the antisocial behaviour order is the most serious of a range of civil powers introduced in 1998 so that the police, local authorities and other agencies could tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way. They needed to tackle the kind of behaviour that falls short of criminality but nevertheless destroys people’s lives. These powers are not driven from Whitehall, as the Home Secretary suggested, but through community safety partnerships that involve community groups and social enterprises.

The second thing that we need to be clear about is that, where those powers are used effectively, they work. I shall lapse into what I hope is uncharacteristic immodesty for a moment when I say that they worked particularly well during my year as Home Secretary, when an additional emphasis was placed on the victim and on intensified activity in localities where public perception of antisocial behaviour was above average.

The social affairs correspondent of The Guardian said recently that these measures had had no discernible effect, but they had a discernible effect in the one place where an effect can be discerned—namely, the British crime survey. The Home Office, under the current Home Secretary, stated on 15 July that, whereas previous reductions had been in one or two specific areas,

“the reduction between 08-09 and 09-10”—

the glorious year of Johnson—

“reflects falls in the proportion of people perceiving a problem with almost all types of anti-social behaviour that make up the overall measure”.

That refers to reductions in abandoned cars, noisy neighbours, drunkenness, drug use, youth nuisance, litter, vandalism and graffiti. Those are all issues for which there were insufficient powers prior to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The statistical release went on to say that antisocial behaviour was now at its lowest level since records began, with, for the first time, a majority of the population agreeing that the police and councils were dealing with antisocial behaviour in their local area.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman cites statistics. Forensic Pathways, an organisation in my constituency, has used Home Office data to show that, although the volume of crime has fallen in the past seven years, the detection and clear-up rates have not fallen. So the cost of crime, per crime, is going up, and the police are becoming less efficient. Does he not think that, rather than ploughing money into a broken system, it is better to get the bureaucracy off the backs of the police so that they can do the job we want them to do, which is to detect more crime?

[Alan Johnson]

It is great to hear Conservative Members accepting that crime has fallen, as they spent so long dancing around the issue under the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). They were told off by the UK statistics authorities and by everyone who looked at the matter. Some people in the police force are looking askance at what this Government are doing. I mentioned the record under the previous Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) is right that the conviction rate needs to be tackled as well, but under the previous Conservative Government, it was not just the conviction rate and the detection rate that had not been tackled, as crime reached 4.6 million—a doubling—under the Tories. There was a 168% increase in violent crime and a 405% increase in burglary. Of course, the Labour Government can be criticised for aspects of what happened over the last 13 years, but what no Conservative Member can do is to suggest that somehow crime has gone up when that was in fact their legacy. If Britain were ever broken, it was broken between 1979 and 1997. The statistics I am citing are not mine; they are the Home Secretary’s.

The death of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter last year shocked this House and shocked the country. It had a profound impact on me as the incoming Home Secretary. That is why I wanted to intensify action. There is no evidence from this tragic incident that it is time to move beyond the ASBO. All the evidence, summarised so astutely by the coroner in that tragic case, showed that the police and local authority in Leicestershire were acting as if they lived in the pre-ASBO era, when no powers existed. One police officer said at the inquest that antisocial behaviour was nothing to do with the police. He was wrong. It is certainly not the responsibility of the police alone, but the police are responsible for it. That police officer was wrong, but 13 years ago, he would have been right. We have to be careful not to return to those days. The Home Secretary speaks of the need to tackle the root causes of this kind of behaviour as if she is unaware of Sure Start, free nursery education, family-nurse partnerships, family intervention projects, the education maintenance allowance, the huge increase in apprenticeships, the 30% increase in the number of kids from deprived areas going to university and all the other measures introduced by the Labour Government—yes, to be tough on the causes of crime, as well as on crime itself.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is providing us with an excellent list of the range of powers available to deal with the very complex issue of antisocial behaviour. It is not just about enforcement, as it is also about tackling the causes. Does he agree that the victims of antisocial behaviour disproportionately live in the poorest parts of our communities in Britain? Someone living in a nice leafy suburb behind a gated community might not appreciate the misery still caused by antisocial behaviour. That is why we need the powers to deal with the problem.

[Alan Johnson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who did a great deal during her time at the Home Office to pursue this agenda. I think that all social strata can suffer from this problem, but she is right in what she says about poor areas. That is why we must never go back to the days when the typical response to this problem on the Labour Benches was saying that we should not get involved in it. We did; we have; it succeeded. We pioneered restorative justice. We began linking drug treatment to prison sentences. We trebled investment in prison education. As a result, reoffending is down by 20% and youth reoffending by nearly 25%.

The Home Secretary said in her July speech that for 13 years people had been told that

“the ASBO was the silver bullet that would cure society’s ills”.

I want her to give me one example—just one—of a Minister ever making any such claim. We never did. It took a whole range of measures to deal with the spiralling crime that we inherited, and that is what we did. As usual, the only thing wrong with the Home Secretary’s pronouncements is the facts.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

If the ASBO was such an excellent policy, will the shadow Home Secretary please explain why the chief constable in my local area wrote an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 30 July saying that

“we need to give people the confidence to tackle anti-social behaviour. In Germany, two thirds of citizens would intervene in public; in this country, two thirds would not. Referring everything to the police, and the legal system, is not the answer to every problem—nor is it affordable.”?

[Alan Johnson]

There it is, this is another “big society” argument—or “do it yourself”: there will not be any PCSOs and police numbers will be cut, so do it yourself. Actually, that article did not in any way contradict what I am saying. There is not one police officer or local government officer in this country and no one on a crime and disorder reduction partnership who does not understand that people have to work together using a range of measures, including getting communities involved. It works successfully where communities have decided to turn their own communities around, but they get help. What the Government are now proposing—the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) could not have put it more succinctly—is that people will get no help in future. That is the Tory argument that we are countering. As I said before, the Home Secretary is often accurate on everything except for the facts.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Following the irrelevant drivel that we have just heard in the previous intervention, is my right hon. Friend aware that Inspector Damian O’Reilly of my constituency, who has just won the Greater Manchester police’s community police officer of the year award and has been entered for the national finals, wrote to me to say:

“Were ASBOs to be abolished it would be devastating for both the community and the officers who put much effort into obtaining them, the problems would reoccur and the only winners would be the criminals?”

[Alan Johnson]

Yes, I agree. As I mentioned, ASBOs are the most serious of the range of measures to combat antisocial behaviour, as an acceptable behaviour contract or a simple letter to the parents of a miscreant might be enough to stop it. What we introduced, as the coroner in the Fiona Pilkington case pointed out, was 15 measures that the police and local authorities could use, dependent on severity of the behaviour. ASBOs, as I say, apply at the more severe end, but all those measures need to be used together, depending on the problem.

[Geraint Davies]

Will my right hon. Friend give way again?

[Alan Johnson]

No, not again, if my hon. Friend does not mind; I have already given way once to him.

On DNA, the Home Secretary says with the smug piety that can have come only from working closely with the Liberal Democrats that our proposed way forward on the DNA database was disgraceful, because, she says with eyes blazing, it meant that the DNA of innocent people would be retained. That is what the right hon. Lady says and I see her nodding her head; it is a viewpoint that she uses against us. The fact is, however, that she proposes to do exactly the same. The difference is that we would keep the DNA profiles of those innocent of both serious and non-serious offences while she would keep the former but not the latter. Furthermore, we would both take the DNA from all those arrested and keep it for a sufficient period to check against previous crime scenes. The logic of the lofty argument that she has got from the Lib Dems—[Interruption.] I will come on to the issue of six years in a few moments. The logic of the argument that innocent people’s DNA is being kept is that we should not take DNA from anyone until they are convicted. Let me explain how nutty that proposition is; it is so nutty that it is not even a Lib Dem conference policy—always a good gauge of whether something is extraordinarily daft.

There is no evidence whatever that those arrested but not convicted of a non-serious offence have any lower propensity to be re-arrested than those arrested but not convicted of serious offences. I repeat—no evidence whatever. If there is, we will no doubt hear it put forward from the Government Dispatch Box. Mark Dixie, the man who brutally raped and murdered Sally Anne Bowman in her front garden, was on the DNA database because he had been arrested but not convicted of a pub-fight—a non-serious offence. If that DNA link had not been made, a guilty man would have remained free to rape and murder again and an innocent man, Sally Anne’s boyfriend, who had dropped her off outside her home after a blazing row witnessed by passers-by, would probably be serving a life sentence. Steve Wright, the murderer of five prostitutes in Ipswich, was on the DNA database because he had been arrested for suspected theft. He would not have been on the database under the Scottish model, which this Government want to adopt.

Furthermore, while the Scottish model retains the DNA of those arrested but not charged for three years—I come to the issue raised by a sedentary comment from the Minister for Immigration—rather than for six years as we propose, it also allows the police to extend the period of retention for unlimited further two-year periods. The next time Members hear the Home Secretary accuse Labour of wanting to retain the DNA of innocent people for six years, they should remind themselves that she wants to adopt the Scottish model. She wants to adopt a system that allows the DNA of innocent people to be retained indefinitely; a system that has no evidential support; a system that, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, would cost an additional £158 million to administer because of all the bureaucracy involved in the two-year reviews; and—most important—a system that would have probably left 26 murderers and rapists unconvicted had it been in force last year.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

There is not a shred of evidence for that.

[Alan Johnson]

The Minister is in the Home Office now. He can seek the evidence. It comes from ACPO’s research, and it comes from Home Office statistics. That is why I used it when I was Home Secretary. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and I used it when we steered through legislation that was agreed to by the Minister’s colleagues. [Interruption.] During the wash-up period, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said, “No way will we agree to this”, but they agreed to it. They could have stopped it, but they did not. I hope that that is because they have begun to realise their sheer folly—and I assure them that they will discover what folly there is in the actions proposed by the Government.

As for CCTV, we still do not know what the coalition means by its reference to greater regulation, or why it considers that there is a problem. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that that reference definitely came from the Liberal Democrats, but we do not know what it means. Given the existence of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act, all of which apply to the authorities responsible for public-space CCTV surveillance, it is difficult to gauge the problem, but in the light of the portentous speeches of the Deputy Prime Minister, we must conclude that the Government want fewer CCTV cameras because the Liberal Democrats have consistently accused the last Government of introducing a “surveillance state”.

I support CCTV and reject the argument that it offends civil liberties. Indeed, it protects the civil liberties of our citizens—and, as we have seen recently, those of the occasional cat dropped in a wheelie bin. I agree with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, in 2007, wrote this—it is excellent—in his local newspaper:

“I had been shown a community centre on a council estate that had been burned down in an arson attack… If only there had been CCTV, the attack might have been prevented or the perpetrator caught…. to those who claim that this all heralds a Big Brother society, I say, why should innocent people worry that someone is watching out for their safety?”

The right hon. Gentleman spoke for Britain then. The vast majority of the population would support what he said, although sadly it is not the view of the pseudo-libertarian Government of whom he is now a member.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

First, the episode of the cat in the bin was filmed not by state-controlled CCTV, but by CCTV that belonged to the householder. [Interruption.] There is a big distinction. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that many leading members of his party have expressed concern about the 13-year legacy of the last Government, and about the fact that the balance between policing and civil liberties has tipped in the wrong direction? All that we seek to do is redress that balance. It is critical to a right and proper society that policing and the rights of the individual are balanced correctly, but the right hon. Gentleman’s party failed to achieve that in 13 years.

[Alan Johnson]

Well, that went on a bit.

I am perfectly well aware of what kind of CCTV caught the cat in the bin. Mine was a throwaway remark, and I now wish that I had not thrown it away. But it is good to hear that the hon. Lady believes that we went too far, and wants to reduce the number of CCTV cameras. That is her point, is it not? Good.

I can tell the hon. Lady about the level of bureaucracy that will have to be introduced if the CCTV cameras are to be taken away from Catwoman’s observer and every other private household. It simply cannot be done. As for CCTV in public spaces, it is already governed by all the legislation that I mentioned earlier.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Johnson]

No, I will not give way again. It was tedious last time, and it would be tedious again. If the Government want to strike a blow against the surveillance state, they should sack Andy Coulson, not take away CCTV cameras.

We recently learned of another power that was due to be introduced, but is now held in suspended animation. This is a serious point. I refer to domestic violence protection orders, which received cross-party support earlier this year. They are designed to protect instantly women and children who are under threat. ACPO, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Women’s Aid and the Home Affairs Committee urged their introduction to close a major gap in public protection. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Committee.

There was no dispute whatsoever about the need for that measure, but although the Home Secretary has said that her

“ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls”,

she presides over a regime that is threatening the enormous progress that has been made in tackling domestic violence over the last 13 years. There has been a 64% reduction since 1997. I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General is present, because he, with rather more grace than the Home Secretary, has recognised the significant increases in successful prosecutions and the sharp fall in the number of discontinued cases, as well as the amazing reduction in domestic violence. However, as the Home Secretary will agree, there is much more to be done in this crucial area.

Thankfully, the Government were forced into a U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants—mainly, I have to say, owing to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who pursued the issue tirelessly. I think that it is time to execute the same manoeuvre, and to get on with introducing domestic violence protection orders as quickly as possible.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Domestic violence is an issue that should worry Members throughout the House, as, indeed, should all forms of violence against women. If the last Government were so concerned about it, however, can he tell me why it took them 12 years to produce a strategy to end it?

[Alan Johnson]

The answer is quite simple. The Home Secretary ought to do some research. From 1998 onwards we did not need a strategy, because we had introduced an action plan involving the changes that led to the reduction to which I referred. [Interruption.] The statistics that I quoted came from the Attorney-General and from the Home Office. If we had waited 12 years to introduce any measures to deal with this issue, we would not have reduced domestic violence by 64%.

As I said earlier, during the biggest global recession that we have experienced since the 1930s, crime fell by 9%. During the recession of the 1990s over which the Conservatives presided, it rose by 18%, and domestic violence doubled. That was the legacy of the broken Britain that we remember from those days. It is ridiculous of the Home Secretary to suggest that because we published a strategy to deal with domestic violence against women and young girls and then moved to the next stage, we did nothing for 12 years. We did nothing for 12 years except reduce domestic violence by 64%, and produce all the other statistics quoted so generously by the Attorney-General.

I have dealt with the reduced resources being inflicted on police forces with restricted powers. Let me now deal with the third part of the triple whammy: the imposition of elected commissioners to replace the hundreds of experienced councillors, magistrates and other citizens who sit on our police authorities. Here we see the “we know best” arrogance of the Government in all its depressing detail. The public did not vote for the abolition of police authorities at the general election, or for their replacement by an elected commissioner. This model is opposed by the police, by local councillors of all political persuasions, by ACPO, by the Association of Police Authorities, and by practically everyone who knows anything about policing.

The Local Government Association, under a Tory stewardship, says it does not believe that introducing directly elected individuals is the best way in which to strengthen police accountability. The association believes that such action

“will weaken the ability of the police, councils and other public services to cut crime.”

It could also “fragment local partnerships” and make a “place-based budgeting approach”—I am not sure what that is—“more difficult” to operate. Yet the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said:

“we are not going to consider other models, this is the model we are going to introduce, that is the coalition agreement.”

And so we have a rushed White Paper, “Policing in the 21st Century”. Incidentally, the Conservatives also produced one of these in 1993; it was called “A police service for the 21st century”, so the titles do not change much but the content certainly does. They published the more recent document on 26 July for an eight-week consultation period over the summer break. Helpfully, at the back of the document there is a code of practice on consultations, which includes the criterion:

“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.”

Irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum, the topic under discussion is a major issue about which there are deep reservations. To quote from the code of practice, it is “feasible and sensible” to have a longer consultation than 12 weeks; there is no argument whatever to curtail it.

The first objection to the proposal is its puzzling inconsistency in relation to the approach to elected mayors. While a referendum is necessary if a city or town might have an elected mayor, no such public consultation is proposed for the equally profound step of introducing a single commissioner to replace the collective and diverse wisdom of police authorities—and this, again, from a Government who preach localism.

There is, of course, an attraction in direct accountability; indeed, when we were in government we looked at the issue not once, but twice. However, the difference between us and the dogmatic zealots who now occupy the Treasury Bench—I excuse the Attorney-General from that—is that we consulted properly. Our 2004 consultation found overwhelming opposition to direct elections. Respondents pointed out the dangers of extremist groups succeeding on low turnouts, single-issue groups dominating, a move to a more short-term approach with re-election dependent on quick wins rather than long-term objectives, the politicisation of accountable bodies and the lack of public appetite for elections and the cost of running them. However, the case for directly electing the 17 members of the police authority—which is what we consulted on and which was Liberal Democrat policy at the last general election—is much stronger than that for the replacement of police authorities by a single elected commissioner. This is the most ill-considered and pernicious aspect of the proposal.

Sir Ronnie Flanagan looked at this issue in his 2008 review. He expressed the great fear about a single person with a political mandate exerting pressure that too readily conflicts with operational judgment. He pointed out that it may also be an impediment to collaboration—which, rightly, is a major part of the Government’s White Paper—since the vote for the post will be on localised issues rather than the largely unseen issues of cross-border collaboration.

Flanagan made a number of points from a policing perspective, but an even stronger argument concerns the loss of a body of people who are geographically diverse as well as diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender and background. The Government propose a new body—a police and crime panel—to oversee the commissioner. That is meant to provide the checks and balances. The body will, however, have no say on policing and no veto over the commissioner’s decisions. Therefore, we face the prospect of having an elected commissioner who, as the White Paper makes clear, will have a team of personal appointees, and a police and crime panel to overview the commissioner but not the police, whose overview will be conducted by a single commissioner whose decisions are final. Somewhere in all of this will be elected councillors—and in some places elected mayors. Chief constables will have to find their way around this maze, with all the additional costs involved, while trying to cope with the biggest financial upheaval the police service has ever faced.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

If it is okay to elect a Prime Minister and local councillors, why is it so wrong to give a local community the chance to choose the kind of policing it wants for its neighbourhoods? Why are the right hon. Gentleman and his party so hostile to local democracy?

[Alan Johnson]

This is a very different issue from that of elected mayors, because they have a broad remit. We introduced elected mayors, and we agree that the Mayor of London should chair the police authority. The trouble is that he finds doing that too hard, so he has stepped down and his unelected deputy is now chairing it. We agree with the Mayor chairing it, however; that is very important.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I believe, as do many other Members on both sides of the House, that the narrower a post’s remit, the more difficult is the argument that we should elect someone to the post by individual ballot, which I presume is why the Government are not suggesting electing the local leader of the health service or the local chair of an education authority. This is a fundamental argument. If there is a broad remit, part of which is policing, election is fine, but if someone is being elected to a post that addresses only one narrow remit, then I think it is wrong. I have serious concerns about this, and the Flanagan consultation showed that they were widely shared.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that one of the problems with having elected police commissioners—or whatever they are going to be called—is that policing organised and serious crime, which we do not necessarily hear about on our doorsteps but which reaches into our communities, will get deprioritised and will not be attended to as seriously as it should be?

[Alan Johnson]

I think that is absolutely right, and on this there is no difference between the Front Benchers. The Government refer in their White Paper to the “golden thread” of connectivity. That is a very important point; indeed, Sir Paul Stephenson made it in a recent speech. It is more and more the case that police forces have to co-operate across borders to tackle terrorism, cybercrime and serious organised crime.

Several generations of police reformers in the USA have regarded the British model of insulation from political control as a solution to their problems of corruption and partisanship. They also consider that the fact that America has literally hundreds of police forces makes their job really difficult. The point is that they cannot go back—once this kind of measure is introduced, that is it; there is no return. I therefore think the Government are being extremely foolish in going down this route. They suggest that there will be no political interference and that the commissioner’s powers will be little different from those invested in a police authority now, which begs this question: what is this upheaval for?

The Government say there is the problem of the invisibility of police authorities and we agree, as do the APA and the LGA. That is why so much effort is going into addressing that invisibility issue without jeopardising either the effectiveness of the really good people involved, who have served their communities well, or the crucial principle of the operational independence of chief constables.

I think there is a better solution and I offer it to the Government in a spirit of political generosity. If the Government are wedded to some measure of direct accountability, I believe a solution might be direct elections for the chair of a police authority while leaving police authorities in place and certainly not causing this huge upheaval—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I did not catch the sedentary comment of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice; if he wants to intervene he can. I think that such elections would be a far better way forward and that the Government should seriously consider that alternative. Instead of the eight-week consultation period, the Government should opt for 12 weeks at least so that these issues can be properly debated. I also believe that if they decide to plough ahead with this they should at the very least give the local population a chance to decide in a referendum whether it wants to maintain the current system or move to a single directly elected commissioner.

On police powers, I say in the same spirit of political generosity that the Government should maintain the DNA legislation, which they supported in the pre-election wash-up, until 2012 when the database will have been in operation for six years. At that point there should be a review of the actual evidence, instead of us just having the projections that inform both our model of six years and the random guess plucked out of the air, which is how Scotland came up with the three year option. Then we can decide properly on the relative merits of the two models. Otherwise we are going to wipe all the DNA information from the database after three years and find out after six years that it is irrefutable that we needed to maintain that information for that length of time to catch murderers and rapists.

The Government should also not reduce the number of public-space CCTVs. I do not wish to interfere with the CCTVs outside Mrs Smith’s house at 42 Acacia avenue. We do not need to reduce CCTV coverage in public spaces.

On the most important issue—on police funding—the Home Secretary has to fight her corner to ensure that policing and security are prioritised in the comprehensive spending review and that cuts in the police budgets do not exceed 12%. As this Government’s honeymoon period draws to a close, they are vulnerable on many issues, none more so than crime and security, where the issue is not about political vulnerability; it is about the vulnerability of our citizens as they seek to go about their daily lives. Despite the successes of the past 15 years, from Howard to Johnson, the battle against crime and disorder has to be stepped up, not scaled back. I warn this House and Members on the Government Benches that the Government are taking the wrong approach and that by refusing to listen and consult they demonstrate not their commitment to civil liberties, but their failure to protect the most important civil liberty of all: the right to be safe from crime and disorder.

14:30

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes the appalling fiscal deficit left by the last Government and reiterates the urgent need to restore the nation to economic health; recognises that the police will need to play their part in reducing that deficit; and welcomes the Government’s proposed policing reforms, which will deliver a more responsive and efficient police service, less encumbered by bureaucracy, more accountable to the public and, most importantly, better equipped to fight crime.”

The text of the Opposition motion and the 50-minute speech that we have just heard from the shadow Home Secretary provide yet more proof, if any were needed, of the utter state of denial of the Labour party. From listening to the shadow Home Secretary and reading the motion, one would wonder how on earth Labour lost the election; it had such a perfect record on everything. Let me just remind the House of its record. Labour doubled our national debt and left us with the biggest deficit in the G20. As much as Labour Members might now like to pretend otherwise, if they had won the election, they would have had no choice but to take action to reduce the deficit. We know that they were already planning 20% cuts—they just did not have the guts to tell us where those would come from. This afternoon, however, we were told by the shadow Home Secretary that they were going to come from health, defence and local government—[Interruption.] Labour Members say that he did not say that, but I asked him where the cuts were coming from and he said, “Well, they weren’t going to come from policing and education” and that he would have taken—

[Alan Johnson]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Perhaps he is going to tell us now.

[Alan Johnson]

The right hon. Lady really does need to follow the debate and to read the documents. Some £75 million was to come from police overtime, £400 million from procurement and £500 million from process. This was all set out in the pre-Budget report, the Budget and last November’s policing White Paper—£1.3 billion-worth of savings. The Government can keep parroting that we have never set all this out, but the trouble is that we have and it is available to look at.

[Mrs May]

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that the intervention that he has just made was not the answer given to the question that I put to him earlier about the cuts and on which I was just commenting. The Labour party went into the election promising 20% cuts. He claims that those would not have come from the Home Office budget. I asked him where they would have come from and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has made clear from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that they would have come from health—that is what the shadow Home Secretary was saying.

If the shadow Home Secretary will not listen to me—he does not appear to wish to listen to me on the issue of cuts—perhaps he will listen to the following:

“When ... Alan Johnson”—

flails at—

“the coalition for protecting NHS spending against cuts being inflicted elsewhere in Whitehall, Labour looks as if it is indulging in opposition for opposition’s sake. Comfortable it may be. But it will not bring Labour back to power.”

Those are not my words, but those of the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Alan Milburn. So let us hear no more nonsense from those on the Labour Benches about police budgets and police numbers.

Labour’s denial is not just about police funding; it is also about its record on crime and policing. I had hoped that the shadow Home Secretary would use the freedom of being in opposition to get around the country and to be out there meeting people and finding out what they really think about what is happening. He might, thus, have learned about the booze-fuelled violence that takes place in too many of our town centres at night, and about the gang crime in our cities and the antisocial behaviour that makes so many people’s lives a misery. But judging by his speech today, and indeed by the motion, he has not bothered to find out what people actually think—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Wait a moment. That is a shame, because there are occasions when the shadow Home Secretary stops playing party politics and is a bit more candid about his record and about our policies. On licensing, for example, he has said:

“I regret not doing more to tackle the problems caused by binge drinking during my period in office. The Government”—

this coalition Government—

“is right to stop alcohol being sold below cost price. It’s something we should have done.”

[Alan Johnson]

indicated assent.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the support that he is, obviously, going to be giving to those measures when they are introduced in the police reform and social responsibility Bill.

[Alan Johnson]

I have been listening.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary listens selectively to one or two of the things that we say; I have just made the point that sometimes he is willing to put aside party politics and to make statements of that sort. Sadly, we did not hear any of those statements in the speech that he has just given. Instead, we heard the familiar rewritten history of the past 13 years. Let us examine some of the claims that Labour makes about that period. It hired a record number of police officers, but it bound them so tightly in red tape that they are available on the streets for only 11% of their time.

[Alan Johnson]

That is not true.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary says that that is not true. I remind him that that figure comes from the very Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report cited in his motion.

[Alan Johnson]

I shall say two things on this. Those on the Government Benches are deriding Michael Howard so, first, I should say that it was the White Paper called “A police service for the 21st century”, produced under Lord Howard, that introduced all of the target regime and suggested that the Home Office should be able to appoint the chairs of political authorities. Some of that was the right thing to do. I know that he is derided by those on the Government Benches, but Michael Howard was actually a very successful Home Secretary.

My second point deals with the HMIC’s figure on availability. HMIC talks about the percentage of the police who are available at any one time to be on the streets. The police work in shifts, and some police officers are sick, some have to be in court, some deal with counter-terrorism and some deal with child pornography, so that statistic is meaningless. Many police officers have been quick to point that out. There is no way in which under the previous Government that availability rate would have been any higher.

[Mrs May]

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that I am deeply disappointed in what he is saying. I will tell him who that statistic means something to—it means something to my constituents, and to those of other hon. Members, when they do not see police on the streets. They know the reality, but sadly the shadow Home Secretary is not willing to accept it. The reality is that because of things that his Government did we have seen that police officers have been tied up in bureaucracy and red tape, kept in police stations filling in forms when they could have been out on the streets, where people want to see them and where they want to be.

This is not just about the bureaucracy faced by police officers; the previous Labour Government passed a record number of laws, but left office with nearly 900,000 violent crimes taking place a year. They spent a record amount on criminal justice, but they left office with 26,000 victims of crime every single day. Labour Members might think that that is a record to be proud of, but we do not and neither do the British people.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Could the right hon. Lady tell us how many of those victims would support her suggestion to get rid of antisocial behaviour orders or would support the reduction in the number of CCTV cameras? Has she ever come across a constituent who wants to see fewer CCTV cameras?

[Mrs May]

Once again, the trouble with the Labour party is that it is making up things about what our policy is, purely in order to meet the arguments that Labour Members want to bring into this House. On CCTV, we have said that we want better regulation of it and automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—and it is right and proper for us to introduce that. If the Labour party thought that there was nothing to be done about CCTV, why did it start looking at introducing somebody to examine the regulation of CCTV? The regulation of CCTV is important and I suggest to the hon. Lady that she does not go around trying to suggest that the Government are going to get rid of CCTV cameras as a result of our policy to regulate those cameras better.

The hon. Lady has given me a welcome opening here, because I wanted to go on to discuss not only the record of the previous Labour Government, but what we are going to do— that is despite the fact that this is an Opposition day debate. I want to talk about how we as the new coalition Government will deliver effective policing that cuts crime in an era of falling budgets, because we on this side of the House are determined not only to tackle the legacy of debt we have been left with by the last Government, but to make sure we deliver high-quality public services even as we reduce public spending. If we are to succeed, the policing reforms I announced to the House before the summer recess, which were so derided by the shadow Home Secretary, will be vital.

Despite spending more on criminal justice than any comparable country, we remain a high-crime country—the chance of being a victim of crime here is higher than almost anywhere else in Europe—[Interruption.] Those on the Labour Front Bench are making lots of comments from a sedentary position, but that is again part of the denial. The idea that this country is somehow a wonderful world where people do not experience crime or antisocial behaviour because of the impact of the last Government is completely false. We remain a high-crime country and we need to do something about it. The complacency on the Opposition Benches about this issue is, frankly, breathtaking.

[Alan Johnson]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the figure, which is in the White Paper, comes from the international crime victims survey, which was last carried out in 2004 and surveys 2,000 people—in comparison with the British crime survey, which surveys 45,000 people—and sometimes takes its statistics from those convicted, a very important point that was raised in an earlier intervention, and sometimes has nothing to do with the level of crimes? It is not a basis for saying that we have the highest crime rates in Europe. Will she confirm that?

[Mrs May]

What I will confirm is that yet again, in this debate, we have seen from those who made up the Labour Government an unwillingness to accept what people out there see and feel on their streets. It is about issues of crime and levels of crime in this country that are not acceptable. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the figures, I think that figures such as those that I quoted earlier—26,000 victims of crime a day and nearly 900,000 violent crimes a year—are not figures to be proud of. They are figures that we need to deal with. We need to do more and that means unfettering the police and allowing them to get out on the streets and to do what they should be doing, which is dealing with crime.

[Hazel Blears]

The right hon. Lady is right that there is always more to do in tackling crime. The Labour party has never been complacent about how important these issues are to the British public. However, does she not accept that there is now the lowest risk for more than 20 years in this country of becoming a victim of crime? Of course we are not perfectly safe but we are an awful lot safer than we used to be under previous Governments.

[Mrs May]

I am disappointed in the line that the right hon. Lady has taken. She made an important and valid point earlier in her intervention on her right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about antisocial behaviour and the important fact that all too often the perception of antisocial behaviour is worse in deprived communities and those communities that are among the poorest and most vulnerable in our country. My point is very simple: none of us can be complacent about levels of crime in this country. We need to find the ways in which we can reduce crime and in which we can help the police to do their job.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mrs May]

No, I will not give way at the moment.

That is why we want to restore that connection between the police and the people that we believe has been bogged down by bureaucracy and damaged over the years.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Northamptonshire people have little to thank the previous Government for. They reviewed formula funding in a way that benefitted the county and then failed to implement it. They admitted that the population figures used were incorrect but failed to act on them and they cheated Northamptonshire police out of millions of pounds a year. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend meet a delegation from Northamptonshire and, I hope, talk about reviewing formula funding?

[Mrs May]

Either I or the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice would be very happy to meet delegations of colleagues, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the Lincolnshire Members of Parliament have already got in before him to discuss their bid on formula funding. However, as I have said, I am happy to meet such a delegation, as is the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.

Let me turn to the point about the accountability of the police and the policing reforms that we will put forward in the police reform and social responsibility Bill. Our changes to the accountability of the police will be crucial in ensuring that they once more become crime fighters instead of form writers. Central to those reforms is the idea that we want to get rid of the inefficient and ineffective processes of bureaucratic accountability, where power rests with Whitehall civil servants, and replace it with direct democratic accountability, with power placed back in the hands of the people. Not only will that make the police truly responsive to the needs of the public, but it will mean a more efficient and innovative police service, free from the meddling of central Government. We can be as aggressive as we like in cutting police paperwork—and we are—but we will never achieve the culture change we need until we deal with the driver of the problem and that is Whitehall.

As I noted earlier, according to the recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that is cited in the motion, only 11% of police officers are visible and available to the public at any one time. It is not as if the Opposition were not warned about that when they were in power. The shadow Home Secretary has quoted Sir Ronnie Flanagan, but he said in his review that the difference in paperwork now compared with when he was a front-line officer was “truly staggering”. Jan Berry, the last president of the Police Federation, said:

“As a result of Government diktats, the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall”.

The last Government did not listen, but we will. Already we have cancelled the top-down public confidence target and scrapped the policing pledge. We are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search and we are scrapping the stop form in its entirety. We will return charging decisions to officers for minor offences and we will reform the health and safety rules that stop police officers intervening to protect the public.

That is just the start. Shifting the model of accountability from the centre to local communities removes the need for pages and pages of bureaucracy and it removes the temptation to Home Secretaries to issue initiative after initiative.

[Keith Vaz]

Of course, we welcome the steps taken by the Home Secretary to reduce bureaucracy, but the previous Government were also committed to reducing bureaucracy. That goes back, as the Home Secretary has said, to the Flanagan report. Will she commit herself to ensuring that Jan Berry, when she delivers her final report, can continue the good work that she is doing in monitoring the level of bureaucracy and advising the Government from outside the Home Office about the need to continue along this path?

[Mrs May]

We obviously look forward to the results of the further work that Jan Berry has been doing in this area. The right hon. Gentleman started his intervention by commenting that the last Government intended to reduce bureaucracy, but the problem was that they did not. We have come in and within a matter of months we have shown specific examples of where we can reduce that bureaucracy.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On that point, my recollection is—I think that the shadow Home Secretary said this in his contribution—that the previous Government did make some progress on bureaucracy. My concern, particularly on stop and search and stop and account, is that we have a long history in this country of recognising that they can have particular effects on particular communities. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be sensitive, particularly in relation to my constituency, to the fact that we have a long past during which this issue has been at the absolute apex of concern about crime. I do not want to see the sort of problems that we had in the 1980s again. When she says that bureaucracy is being reduced as regards stop and account, will she say whether there will still be accountability for stopping ethnic minorities, in particular?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He makes particular reference to his constituency, and there will be others who will share his concern. That is why, as I said, we are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search. We fully recognise that we need to do that in a sensitive way that notes and deals with the issue that he has raised.

In addition to dealing with bureaucracy, we will introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners—single, named individuals who will be democratically accountable to their communities. That accountability will be real and will be provided not by invisible police authorities—surveys show that only 7% of people know that there is a police authority they can go to if they have a problem with the police—and not by Ministers hundreds of miles away in London, but by people themselves. The police commissioner will be somebody whom people have heard of, whom they have voted for, whom they can hold to account and whom they can get rid of if they do not cut crime. So we will leave local crime fighting to local crime fighters, but we will not forget cross-border, national and international crime. It is an irony that for years the Home Office has tried to micro-manage local policing from the centre while it has neglected policing at the national level. That is why we will establish a national crime agency with a proper command structure to fight serious organised crime and to control our borders.

I understand that it was only yesterday that the Opposition added antisocial behaviour to their motion. The shadow Home Secretary spent quite a bit of time on it in his speech, but he forgot to mention his own quote about the last Government’s record on antisocial behaviour, when he said:

“We became a bit complacent…we…dragged our feet by not making it a priority.”

He claimed that the police have the powers they need to deal with antisocial behaviour and that there is a range of 15 options that they can use, but the fact that there are so many options is precisely the problem. We have individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour injunctions, antisocial behaviour orders and criminal antisocial behaviour orders. There is a whole list of options that increases the bureaucracy and complexity and means that in many areas, the police, councils and local people find it very difficult to decide what is appropriate, and that all too often things are not applied.

The shadow Home Secretary should also know that three quarters of incidents of antisocial behaviour are not reported and that more than half of ASBOs are breached. Again, that is not a record of which to be proud or on which to be complacent. That is why we need to look at the whole toolkit that is available to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour. No number of sanctions is a match for local policing that is responsive to local needs. That is what this Government’s police reform agenda will deliver—simpler, smarter sanctions that are faster to obtain, easier to enforce and that provide a strong deterrent and a real punishment.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

One of the main problems encountered by those dealing with ASBOs has been the inordinate length of time it can take for applications to succeed, only for people then to find that the problem that they were dealing with has gone away or has transmogrified into something else. Secondly, CRASBOs, or criminal ASBOs—I am sorry about using that acronym, or euphemism; it does not matter—are totally ineffective. They are afterthoughts that are bolted on to convictions and their enforcement has been nothing short of lamentable.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about the panoply of ASBO powers that are available. The important point is that the bureaucracy involved in getting an ASBO means that, all too often, nothing is done, because it takes so long to get something enforced. That is why so many communities up and down the country find that the orders are not working and why they continue to suffer from antisocial behaviour.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

Oh, the hon. Gentleman has been bobbing up and down all afternoon, so I will give way to him.

[Geraint Davies]

It is very generous of the right hon. Lady to see me. I could not sit any closer; I have been doing my best. Will she say how her Government expect to reduce the number of short-term prison sentences—now a clear and amplified ambition—at the same time as getting rid of ASBOs and the current means of reducing those short-term measures without a massive escalation of crime and antisocial behaviour in the community?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman should not try to second-guess what may or may not be in the sentencing review that will come from the Ministry of Justice. There is a commitment to reviewing sentencing and I suggest that he should wait until that comes out, when he will be able to make his comments.

One area that I want to speak briefly about, which has not been touched on much today, is the unmitigated disaster of Labour’s Licensing Act 2003. One in three people who turn up in accident and emergency have alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related crime and disorder costs the taxpayer up to £13 billion every year. When that legislation was introduced, we were promised a café-style culture, but five years on the police are still fighting an ongoing battle against booze-fuelled crime and disorder. So we will overhaul Labour’s Licensing Act to ensure that local people have greater control over pubs, clubs and other licensed premises. We will allow local authorities to charge more for late-night licences, which they will then be able to plough back into late-night policing in their areas. We will double the fine for under-age sales and we will allow authorities permanently to shut down any shop or bar that persistently sells alcohol to children. We will also ban the below-cost sale of alcohol to ensure that retailers can no longer sell it at irresponsible prices. As I have said, I welcome the support for that which we will have from the Opposition.

In today’s motion and in the shadow Home Secretary’s speech, he and the Opposition have fallen into the trap of thinking that they need to oppose everything the Government do just for the sake of it. They are denying the legacy of debt that they have left to this Government and they oppose the Budget cuts that they had planned to make. In denying their record, they oppose the police reforms that they once proposed, so let me try to shake the shadow Home Secretary out of his state of denial. Police officers are available on the streets for just 11% of their time and there are 900,000 violent crimes a year and 26,000 victims of crime every single day. That is the legacy of the Labour party and it will be up to the coalition Government to put things right.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As hon. Members will see, there is a 10-minute limit on speeches and the usual rules apply as far as interventions are concerned.

14:57

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this point in the debate. I have to start with an apology: the Jewish new year starts at sunset and therefore I shall not be able to attend the winding-up speeches because the imperative of the synagogue is greater than the imperative of the Whips.

Crime is a concern that never goes away. Whatever the statistics say, and whoever quotes those statistics, crime against one’s family or oneself is, for most people, the only crime. That is natural. However, statistics show that crime in many categories has gone down and that the number of police has risen. The Greater Manchester police cover my constituency, and the statistics that they have issued over the past few weeks, while not perfect, as they never will be, are encouraging. They show the beneficial effect of both the dedicated work done by our police in Manchester and more widely and the policies that the Labour Government implemented.

In my constituency, taking into account the continuous and justified concern about law and order issues that there will always be, the record is even better. Statistics that have been sent to me by the police in my area show that 76.5% of users of the law and order mechanism were satisfied with that service. That is remarkable because the satisfaction of the population will always be affected by crime levels and the effect of crime on themselves. Remarkable figures have been issued for my constituency showing reductions in antisocial behaviour, burglary, vehicle crime and robbery. We also have remarkable figures on the detection of serious sexual offences, domestic abuse, racially or religiously aggravated crime, burglary, vehicle crime and robbery. Our figures on levels of crime are a great credit to the police, so I thank the police in my constituency, and those more widely in Greater Manchester, for the wonderful job that they do. I repeat that that does not mean that the statistics are perfect, but they are getting better all the time.

Given the commendable record of the police and the fact that they have close relations with the community, what will the Government do? First, they will spend a lot of time meddling with administration and, secondly, they will make huge cuts in spending. The Home Secretary kept on saying—it was like a mantra—that we have a coalition Government, so let us look at what the Liberal Democrat manifesto said. It included the heading “Cutting crime with more and better police”, even though there will be fewer police. It said that

“more police are needed on the streets…to provide a longer arm for the law”,

but the number of police on the streets, like the number of police overall, will be cut. The manifesto said that, if the Liberal Democrats had any voice in government, they would,

“Pay for 3,000 more police on the beat”,

but there will be fewer police on the beat. I can say to the Government and the Liberal Democrats that we will tell everyone in Gorton again and again that, while the Liberal Democrats will make promises, if they are ever involved in government, they not only fail to deliver them but then turn them on their head. We will not allow the Liberal Democrats in my Gorton constituency or those more widely in Manchester to get away with that. What the Liberal Democrats promise and what the Home Secretary foreshadows will not happen.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, but if I have time, I shall certainly give way.

We must also consider the situation surrounding antisocial behaviour orders. We pioneered ASBOs in Manchester and have a remarkable record on that. Inspector Damian O’Reilly has just received the Greater Manchester police’s community police officer of the year award and will be entered in the national finals in November. He has given me information about how ASBOs have dealt with gangs in my constituency. That has been praised by a judge. When certain people who had been detected and rounded up by the police were found guilty by that judge, he said:

“It’s time to give Ryder Brow”—

which is in my constituency—

“back to the residents”.

Inspector O’Reilly—he is someone who is doing this work—says that he has found ASBOs

“to be really effective in breaking up the dynamics of problematic groups”.

He goes on to state:

“Were ASBOs to be abolished it would be devastating for both the community and the officers who put so much effort into obtaining them, the problems would reoccur and the only winners would be the criminals.”

The Home Secretary states—although it is impossible to say how she knows this—that only a proportion of antisocial behaviour is reported. She seems to suggest that that is an indictment of ASBOs, but only a minute proportion of rapes are ever reported by rape victims—a tiny number of women report rapes—so does that mean that we should not have legislation to deal with rapists? The right hon. Lady puts forward an utterly absurd argument.

No Government have ever had a perfect record on law and order, but the Labour Government improved things and made it possible for the police at the sharp end to improve the situation in my constituency. Time will tell what will happen as a result of the Government’s proposals and the objectives that the Home Secretary set out today. If she is right, we will have to acknowledge that, but if she is wrong, the Government will be to blame and they will have to carry the can. What they are doing is likely to make the criminal more rampant while the householder who is burgled and the person who is knocked down on the street become more vulnerable.

[Mrs May]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

But neither the right hon. Lady nor I can provide statistics for next year or the year after, and we will judge her on them.

15:06

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I should start with a declaration of interest in that not a single word of my speech has come from the Chief Whip’s crib sheet, despite the fact that my right hon. Friend was born and bred in my constituency.

We have heard a lot of speculation about the possible effect of cuts. As it happens, that was pure speculation, given that we do not know what the settlement will be following the comprehensive spending review, and Labour Members have not had the good grace to tell us where they would make cuts. However, I want to try to nail one issue by moving the debate away from the stale analysis of inputs of the past 10 years and towards an assessment of outputs. During its 13 years in government, the Labour party was incredibly successful at one thing in particular: persuading the country that only by putting more in could we possibly get more out. That is why the debate about effective policing is always focused on numbers of police rather than what they actually do, as we have heard.

Labour Members have always followed a simple equation: more money equals better public services. They therefore believe that simply having more police and PCSOs automatically means that there will be better policing, irrespective of what those people do all day—whether they are in cars, on patrol, filling in forms or responding to jobs. The Opposition seem incapable of acknowledging that simply having more police officers doing more administrative and bureaucratic tasks leads to lower morale and, ultimately, less effective policing.

Labour Members have extended the argument of looking at inputs rather than outputs to the public sector as a whole, but if their argument is true—if more public spending genuinely equals better public services—this country should have some of the best public services in the entire world. Given the amount that we have spent, borrowed and spent again during the past 13 years, we should surely have the best public services in Europe, but the sad reality is that we are at the bottom of many league tables because we have the worst services.

Labour Members will remind us that we have more police than ever, with 140,000 full-time equivalent officers in England and Wales, but let us not make their mistake of thinking that having record numbers of police means that we have record effectiveness of policing, because almost the opposite is true. Despite the record numbers of police, there is huge public dissatisfaction with the service. Significantly, the public’s attitudes towards the police are negatively related to personal experiences of the police service. The shadow Home Secretary likes to cite the British crime survey, but according to its 2005 public satisfaction report, although 89% of people were satisfied with their initial contact with the police, only 58% were satisfied with their follow-up contact. Only 50% of all respondents thought that the police in their area did a good or excellent job, and that was down from 67% in 1994. According to the BCS, therefore, such satisfaction decreased massively under the previous Government from 67% to 50%. A 50% satisfaction rating is a very poor performance by any institution; similar surveys rate doctors, teachers, judges and the NHS higher—unsurprisingly, only politicians score worse.

At the same time as we have record spending on the police, we have declining public satisfaction with the service they receive. That leads me to my key point: if more money does not equal better public services, it cannot be the case that less money will mean worse services. Why, when there is a record number of police officers, do the public still routinely say when asked that they feel less safe? Is it something that only Members on this side of the House understand? Only in the public sector is Labour’s absurd notion that better results can be achieved only with more money propagated. In the private sector, if better outcomes or more efficient production are needed to sell more work or deliver better results faster, spending more money is pretty much the last thing that those in that sector think about. If the customer is not happy, they do not put up the price; they look to take costs out of the business and seek ways to make efficiencies, improve processes, reduce overheads and stop spending time on administrative and bureaucratic tasks. If they conclude that efficiencies are needed to lower the price and stay competitive, then, by God, that is what they do.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. We all accept that the service is not perfect. Does that mean that he believes that better outputs will be achieved with fewer police officers on the street?

[Mr Burley]

I think better outputs are possible with fewer officers if they are better directed and not spending their time doing administrative, bureaucratic and ultimately futile tasks that do not benefit the public in any way.

To continue the comparison with the private sector, Sainsbury’s employs 150,000 people in this country and is creating 5,000 new jobs through store openings this year because of—not despite—saving £4 million this year in administration costs by moving its entire staff recruitment process online. Tesco’s has just taken £3 million out of its cost base, simply by rationalising how meeting rooms are booked. Those successful businesses are competitive because they are fit and lean, constantly seeking ways to reduce costs and inefficiencies while giving the best service to the public.

[Caroline Flint]

When police forces were inspected for outcomes, often, in terms of reducing crime, they were doing well in those categories, but one area where they did not do quite so well was communicating with the public. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the police should spend more resources on communicating, or should they spend their resources on police officers fighting crime?

[Mr Burley]

I think the police should spend their resources on fighting crime. Communication will follow if they are doing a good job and the public are happy.

My question is this: if the private sector can make those efficiencies while giving better services and products, why can the police not do the same? What exactly are all the extra police we are constantly told about spending their time doing? As we have heard, Home Office figures have revealed that police officers spend more time on paperwork than on patrol—just 14% of police officers’ time is spent on patrol, compared with 20% on paperwork. Of the 81,000 officers who patrol our country, including detectives, traffic police and neighbourhood watch teams, just 17,000 will be on duty for an average eight-hour shift. With 14% of their time spent on patrol, only 2,400 officers are out and about at a given time—just one in 58 of a record number of police officers is patrolling the streets at any one time. No wonder Jan Berry, former chairman of the Police Federation, commented:

“People hear about a record 143,000 officers and it sounds a lot, but the reality, as these new figures show, is quite different. The Government obsession with targets and data collection, as well as the failure to provide an effective system to share information, has resulted in officers spending less time on the beat and this can only be at the expense of the public.”

Even way back in 2001, a study by PA Consulting for the Home Office found that police officers were spending as much time in the police station as they were on the streets. For five hours a day—more than 50% of the time that the officers were on a shift—they were sat in the station. The study also found that most of the time spent in the police station was spent dealing with incidents and making inquiries; only 17% of police officer time was spent on reassurance patrol; and only 1% of police time was spent proactively reducing crime. The study also unearthed a startling statistic: if the amount of time a police officer spends on the beat could be increased from one fifth to two fifths, the police presence on the streets of England and Wales would effectively be doubled, without a single extra officer being recruited. Clearly, there is considerable scope to free officers to spend more time out on the beat, and a massive dividend to be gained from doing so.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points about efficiency and productivity, but does he accept that much of the bureaucracy is not in the police station, but in the courts system, which ties our police officers into giving evidence, preparing case files and having a huge amount of paperwork? I recommend to him the argument that more effective liaison with the criminal justice system is essential if we are to get more productivity.

[Mr Burley]

That is an entirely fair point, and I agree, but the focus of this debate and of my speech is on police bureaucracy.

That leads me on to a pledge, which I am sure Labour Members recall, made in 2002 by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He promised a “bonfire of the paperwork” to free up more police time, which he said would save 90,000 hours a year. The Home Office then set up a policing bureaucracy taskforce, which published a report with 52 change proposals, which it claimed would

“enable patrol officers to invest the time equivalent of 22,500…in improved quality of service on the streets.”

The taskforce said that that would be achievable within three to five years, but today—nearly 10 years later—not a single update has been published nor follow-up audit made available on how many of those recommendations were implemented and whether that was successful.

The reality is that the recruitment of additional police officers and a public commitment to develop neighbourhood policing will have little impact unless the major bureaucratic obstacles facing the police in this country are removed. The annual cost of non-incident-related police paperwork in England and Wales has been estimated to be about £625 million. Police have to produce planning and review team performance improvement reports, more than 100 pages long, every month. Paradoxically, under Labour, while the Home Office increasingly attempted to micro-manage the police from the centre, it showed weak leadership in other areas of policing, where I think the centre has a role to play in driving through reforms and improving collaboration. Huge savings could be made from, for example, ensuring IT compatibility, joint procurement and sharing of back-office functions such as fleet management, uniforms and administration.

That is why I am delighted that the coalition Government are no longer focusing on police numbers—we are not playing the numbers game. Instead, we are focusing on police outcomes, improved by clearing away bureaucracy and inefficient, wasteful practices. Yes—referring to the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks—we need a big society, because the alternative to a big society is a big state, and not only is a big state unaffordable, but it infantilises people and discourages them from taking responsibility. It is Labour’s big state that leads directly to the sort of horrendous incident that occurred in Manchester in 2007, when two police community support officers stood by as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a local pond, because the health and safety rulebook said they could not intervene. If the coalition is to leave the police forces of the United Kingdom one major legacy, let it be this: it is time once again to allow the police to serve the public, rather than the statistical whims of Ministers in Whitehall.

15:20

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I should like to contribute to this debate from the point of view of my constituents and the needs of my constituents. What concerns me about radical cuts to the police service is that we will see the end of safer neighbourhood teams as we currently know them.

Safer neighbourhood teams were introduced in the teeth of opposition from the advocates of traditional policing. The arguments were that police in panda cars, driving around in response teams, were a far more effective way of reducing crime than safer neighbourhood teams. I am not a policing analyst, but my experience suggests that, when it comes to tackling crime, confidence and belief in the police, and the process of becoming connected to one’s local police team, are more likely to be more effective than the response teams that we have traditionally seen in the Metropolitan police area. Discussions with my local area commander and with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have reinforced my fear about the cuts in safer neighbourhood teams. They are easy to cut and get rid of, because they have gone against the trend of policing over the past 50 years.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady knows that earlier this year the shadow Home Secretary talked about making 20%-plus cuts. She says that she does not want to see cuts in safer neighbourhood teams, so will she share with the House where she would like to see the cuts made, and where she thinks priority should be placed on the savings that, unfortunately, her Government’s legacy made necessary for whoever were in power?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The shadow Home Secretary has already identified this afternoon where the cuts would be made in the Home Office budget, and we believe that safer neighbourhood teams should be our priority, because our tax-paying constituents want to see that and believe in that. They want to see their police out there on the beat, to know their names and to know their police community support officers.

In 2011, we will see the end of the Mayor of London’s financial commitment to PCSOs. What will that mean at that time? The PCSOs were much derided by Conservative MPs and by the press when they were introduced, but they have been a tremendous addition to traditional policing, because, on intelligence gathering, PCSOs have the confidence of local residents and are able to discuss concerns with them. I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) made about the mistakes that are occasionally made, but when one brings in any new service or public administration, our urgency and desire to introduce them sometimes outstrips our ability to consider all the options and eventualities. Yes, in the early days of PCSOs, mistakes were made in service provision, but they have been amended and PCSOs are well embedded in our areas.

PCSOs are perhaps most effective in those areas where people are less inclined to speak to the police, and among the groups and communities that are most alienated from the police and from all sorts of Government bodies. That is because PCSOs are more likely to be from an ethnic minority, older and different from traditional police officers. Many people in my community, particularly in Pollards Hill, feel closer to their PCSOs and find it easier to discuss matters with them.

I also say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase that policing is about not just tackling crime, but community confidence, people’s ability to speak to their police officers and a feeling of safety. That involves communication and the police’s ability to communicate. The police do not necessarily have those skills, because they go into the job to tackle crime; we—the political we—have to provide them with those skills and with the ability to communicate what they do. However effective the police become at tackling crime, the ability of the media and all sorts of people to decry what the police do can be so effective as to make people unaware of their achievements. They have not only to tackle crime, but to be seen to tackle crime, and that is why communication and communication skills are so important.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

In that typical way of new Labour in government, however, did not safer neighbourhood policing panels become very process-focused organisations? The aim of communicating with local people was a laudable one, and we could afford to do so in good times, but it was also a displacement activity, because one only had to talk to most basic command unit commanders to find out that the number of prolific and persistent offenders remained high. Those people were on a carousel in the criminal justice system, and safer neighbourhood teams did nothing about that problem, and nothing, in particular, about antisocial behaviour.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Can I absolutely oppose what the hon. Gentleman says, accept that safer neighbourhood teams were perfect and argue that their shift patterns were always correct? No, of course I cannot. I fought against the balance of shift patterns in my constituency. Are there problems with the fact that shift patterns have to be printed 18 months in advance, and with requests for uniformity among the teams? Yes. But my police teams in each ward in my constituency know exactly who their prolific offenders are, where they are and what they are doing, and their intelligence assists the other, reactive police teams in the division.

The amount of intelligence on, and knowledge of, communities is so much more significant now. That becomes really important in an area such as mine in south London, where population turnover is so huge and quick, and where from all over the world groups of people with different practices and ideas come to live, often becoming the foremost victims of violent crime.

The antisocial behaviour order has not been 100% successful, because no measure is 100% successful, but, on the idea that they should be scrapped because they are breached 50% of the time, I must ask, do we scrap laws on burglary, fraud or anything that we like because there is a recidivism rate? No, we do not. We have to try to find out why people continue to commit antisocial behaviour and deal with them. We are on a journey, and the police are entering an area that used to be occupied by different forces of control, whether they were the extended family, the stronger community or church and religion. Our communities are very different, and the idea that people are going to go out and tackle antisocial behaviour, confront people whom they do not know and put themselves in a vulnerable or frightening position is unrealistic.

We must see the police out there, taking action. They have to be there for people, when they need them and in the way that they need them, but I am absolutely convinced that huge, swift cuts in the police service will reduce the number of police whom we see on the street. A reduction in police on the street means that our most vulnerable constituents will have less confidence in the police, and that fewer crimes will be tackled, and in the end that cannot be what we want.

Our discussions in the House are so different from those that I have with my constituents. I have never met a constituent who has told me that the police have reduced our civil rights; my constituents want to see more effective ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. I have never met a constituent who wanted to get rid of CCTV; all my constituents want more, because it makes them feel safe and confident. I just do not understand how some MPs can make the speeches that they do. I am absolutely confident that they would not go back to their constituents and make such speeches, because they are so out on a limb when compared with how people feel.

A reduction in the number of police officers is against all our interests, and against the interests of our constituents. I ask Government Members seriously to consider that when the matter comes up on 20 October.

15:28

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), from my neighbouring constituency, who, as always, does a very good job of defending her constituents’ priorities. She said that she has never come across anyone who has complained about their civil liberties being impacted by the police. Well, having spent five hours contained by the police at the G20 protest, I personally feel that on that occasion my civil liberties were infringed, along with those of 2,000 or 3,000 other people who were present at that event.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has unfortunately just left the Chamber, was very helpful in telling us what he was going to tell his constituents about what the Liberal Democrats were doing in the coalition Government. I wanted to tell him—he will have to read it in Hansard—what we will be telling his constituents about the economic scorched earth policy that his Government adopted when they were in power. We will also point out to them that he, like many other Labour Members, suffers from the characteristic amnesia that has afflicted the Labour party since the general election.

I was greatly entertained by what was not exactly a leadership bid by the old Home Secretary, but at least a bid to secure his position as shadow Home Secretary in any future Labour shadow Cabinet. His speech may have had some credibility on the Labour Benches, but those in the wider country will perhaps have wanted a demonstration of some humility for the part that he played in creating the calamitous economic car crash that the coalition Government now have to turn around. But of course he made no such acknowledgement of the part that he played, nor of the fact that we have had to borrow £150 billion in the past year. I am afraid that with his rather facile asides he demonstrated the same ingrained—perhaps it is ingrained in his DNA—denial culture that is far too often demonstrated by Labour Members.

I am critical of the previous Government’s economic incompetence, but not uniformly critical of their record in power. They achieved some very positive things of which they can be proud. For instance, I support the safer neighbourhood teams. I support the role that police community support officers play and the impact that that has had not only on crime locally but on the perception of crime. I hope that irrespective of what police forces up and down the country will face as a result of the economic circumstances that we are in, they will be able to maintain their presence on our bstreets. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) did a good job of demonstrating how much can be achieved in increasing police presence on our streets. That does not necessarily require there to be more police officers but simply better use of the available time.

The consultation paper “Policing in the 21st century” sets out where the coalition Government are going. I welcome the debate that they have kicked off in relation to several police and justice issues, whether it be licensing and banning the sale of below-cost alcohol, short-term prison sentences, or the system of temporary bans on legal highs, which we will debate tomorrow. Those are good matters for us to discuss as a Parliament. I welcome the reforms that are set out in that paper.

Prior to the general election, for the Liberal Democrats as a party, the creation of elected police commissioners was undoubtedly the most controversial proposal that the coalition is now taking forward. I want to explain why we are supporting that proposal within the coalition. The key to this is the checks and balances that will be in place to cover the activities of elected police commissioners, and we need to focus our attention on those. I welcome the fact that there will be a strong duty on commissioners to collaborate with other commissioners to ensure that cross-border issues are addressed, because that was one of our fundamental concerns.

As regards the powers that the panel will have, I hope that we can get the coalition Government to move a little further in relation to the strategy or budget that the elected commissioner is to adopt, because those are matters that the panel could have a more decisive say over. Perhaps, similarly to what happens with the Mayor’s budget, a two-thirds majority might be required to oppose the commissioner’s budget or strategy and for that then to have to be reviewed. The coalition Government should consider that carefully. With better checks and balances, it is possible to ensure that elected police commissioners work and can be fully representative of communities. I hope that there is still time to consider elected commissioners as a pilot project. It is always worth rolling something out in a small way to start with and measuring its effectiveness before introducing the whole scheme, so I hope that even at this late stage that can be considered.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Equalities on the Front Bench, because I wish to raise the question of how we can ensure that the whole cohort of elected police commissioners do not look like me and most of the other male Members in the Chamber. It would be regrettable if the system ensured that the only people who could get elected were white, middle-aged males and there was no representation of any other gender or ethnicity among the commissioners. I hope that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will respond to that point in his summing-up.

Although it is a matter for debate between the Government and the Mayor of London, I should like some clarity on the future of the Metropolitan Police Authority if the Minister is able to give it. There is some confusion about whether it will be abolished, as “Policing in the 21st century” suggests, or whether its administrative functions will simply be absorbed into city hall. Also in a London context, is the Minister entirely happy with elected commissioners being able to delegate their role to another individual? The coalition Government are rightly selling elected commissioners on the basis that there will be one strong person with whom the population can identify, and that people will know who to contact and who is responsible. If their power is delegated to someone else, I believe that link will be broken.

I wish to mention one further issue in the short time that I have left, which is the absorption of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre into the national crime agency. I am sure that the Minister is aware that CEOP has concerns, particularly about its ability to continue to work in a wide partnership with a host of organisations, such as social services. Those organisations may find it difficult to continue the partnership process if CEOP is absorbed within the NCA completely. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the situation will be manageable within the NCA and that the strong links and positive partnership that exist will not be damaged.

I am pleased to have had a chance to speak in today’s debate. I welcome what the Government have set out in “Policing in the 21st century” on where policing will go in the next few years, but there are still some concerns about elected police commissioners. I hope that the coalition Government will address those concerns to ensure that commissioners are representative of their communities and deliver an agenda that the entire local community will support.

15:38

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who for a long time was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs.

It would be unfair to talk about the Government’s record on crime and policing, as they have been in office for only 16 weeks. Quite rightly, therefore, the debate so far has been focused on their reform programme. It is an ambitious programme—I know it, and so do members of my Committee, some of whom are in their places, such as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). At every single meeting of the Committee so far, there has been discussion about how on earth we will respond to the Government’s crowded agenda on crime, policing and other Home Office issues.

I should like to begin by welcoming some very important policies that the Government have initiated, because they are all recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee of the previous Parliament. The establishment of the National Security Council, the work on alcohol- related crime, the announcement today of the extradition law review, even though we have not yet had a decision on Gary McKinnon, what the Government are suggesting on reducing bureaucracy, the decision to implement the law on wheel-clamping, which the Committee has been on about for the past five years, and the proposals on a fast-track means of banning legal highs are all welcome moves by the Government because, of course, the Committee recommended them in the previous Parliament.

My concern is that the good intentions will be put at risk by the comprehensive spending review. The Government will have serious problems with police numbers. I accept that the law and order and policing debate should not be around numbers, although every Member of Parliament has always told their constituents that they want to see more bobbies on the beat. In exchanges with me and others, the Police Minister has said—indeed, he told the Committee this—that he does not believe that there will be a reduction in front-line policing as a result of proposals in the CSR, but I do not believe that that is possible.

On Monday, at the invitation of another member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), I went to Medway, where I spoke to the chief constable about his statement last Friday, in which he said that if the Government’s proposals to cut expenditure by 20% go through, he will see a reduction of £35 million in his budget, which would mean the loss of 1,500 police officers. That is a huge number for a county such as Kent. Therefore, although the Minister feels that he cannot be specific on numbers and the effect that the CSR will have on local police forces, the fact is that it will impact on each and every Member of the House. Will he seek at the earliest opportunity to give an indication to local police forces of how much the cuts will be, because at the moment, an enormous amount of senior police officers’ time is spent trying to guess what the percentage will be? The earlier they get a response from the Government, the better. Even a broad indication of the proposals would be extremely helpful to them.

I listened to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, who is absolutely right that the reduction of bureaucracy and the saving of money is a crucial part of our view of policing, but the previous Government started us along that route. Perhaps they did so later than anticipated, but as the Minister may find out, Ministers cannot do everything immediately—things take time. The previous Government initiated the Flanagan review, and Jan Berry was appointed by Jacqui Smith, the previous Home Secretary, and she has done some valuable work on the reduction of bureaucracy. We all have an interest in ensuring that police officers are back on the beat and that they provide front-line services rather than waste their time on unnecessary bureaucracy. That is why the Government should give a commitment to keep Jan Berry in post after she delivers her final report in July. It is important that someone who knows about policing acts as an external force, because such a person can deal with the vested interests that try to prevent real change.

However, the Government should also give special attention to good practice. When I was in Kent on Monday, I saw that the local police were doing some excellent work on the reduction of street prostitution and on offender management. When I went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), I saw effective engagement by the police with local people—the essence of community policing is the ability to engage with local people. It is important that such good practice is shared as quickly as possible.

I remember a visit to Burton I made a year ago with the then MP for the area. Staffordshire police had done good work in reducing paperwork from 24 sheets of paper to one, but that good practice has still not been rolled out by the Home Office to other areas of the country, and that would save a great deal of time.

I shall not go into the issue of procurement now, but I am sure that the Minister knows what I mean. Kent police have bought Skodas, but the next-door forces in Sussex and Surrey have bought different makes of car. We cannot have 43 police authorities all buying different vehicles. Procurement is vital. Indeed, it is a no-brainer and I do not know why it has not been done in the last 20 years, let alone the last 13. Successive Governments have failed to get the procurement policies right, but it is time to break down the vested interests and give some clear direction.

The big change will be in the landscape of policing, including in effect the abolition of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency, and the creation of the national crime agency. This is a great opportunity to change the landscape of policing. For the first time, one can achieve policing on a national level with specialist interests. This is an opportunity for the Government to pause and hear the advice of stakeholders before they rush in and create a new organisation. The danger in abolishing existing organisations—which have budgets of £470 million and £430 million, almost £900 million—without thinking carefully is ending up with the problem that the NHS has of almost constant reorganisation. I ask the Minister to pause and ensure that he thinks very carefully before coming to his final conclusions.

Because the Government’s agenda is so large, the Select Committee has decided to put together the proposals in a major stakeholder meeting to be held in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. I hope that the Minister will accept the invitation to attend that meeting, because we seek to bring together the 43 chief constables and other stakeholders to discuss all the issues that are before Parliament and the public. So everybody will have the opportunity to have their say and consult the stakeholders carefully before the Select Committee embarks on the four policing reports that we will undertake. We have decided not to have one big policing report, because that would take too long and we want to keep up with the Government’s suggestions.

We need to engage with local communities and stakeholders, and actually ask local people what they want. Politicians can discuss structures until the cows come home, but the issue comes down to the ability of the public to pick up a telephone and call a police officer if a crime has been committed or to see a police officer on the beat. That is what policing is all about, and if the Government engage with Parliament and we do this— as far as possible—on the basis of consensus, we can make a lasting change to our policing structure.

15:48

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) who spoke with his customary expertise and erudition.

This afternoon I feel as if I have stumbled upon the Alan Johnson shadow Cabinet hustings speech. It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary is no longer in his place, but he was performing for a very small audience—the parliamentary Labour party—which will vote in the forthcoming shadow Cabinet elections. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, the right hon. Gentleman demonstrated a degree of selective amnesia. On this side of the House, we will continue to make the point that the reason we have to make any fiscal reductions is the calamitous fiscal situation bequeathed to us by the Labour Government—£157,000 million of public sector debt.

What marks out the contributions from Opposition Members is an opportunistic and, frankly, intellectually dishonest approach. I specifically challenged the right hon. Gentleman about his comments on 20 April, during the election, when—as Home Secretary—he committed to a 20% reduction in the policing budget and refused to specifically rule out reductions in front-line police numbers. It ill behoves him to attack the Home Secretary for having to do what he himself would already have done.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, not Birmingham, Hall Green.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind about my constituency. It is true that Labour set out cuts, but since then the coalition has decided to make a further £30 billion of cuts. Those cuts are not economically necessary, but ideologically driven. That is why we have a problem today.

[Mr Jackson]

The key point that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, must concede is this: if we are to de facto ring-fence the police budget, it is incumbent on the Labour party to say where the cuts would occur in other areas of Government activity. Would it be social services, transport, health, education or defence? We are not receiving those answers from Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The Opposition’s collective amnesia, articulated by the shadow Home Secretary, is interesting. He had a bit of a mea culpa moment over the Licensing Act 2003, of which I shall say more later, and which was also a catastrophe. It has created a calamitous situation, and now huge amounts of public resources have to be spent on the consequences of an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that demonstrably increased antisocial behaviour and impacted across public services, as the shadow Home Secretary would concede.

We heard nothing about the botched mergers forced on police authorities in 2006, which led indirectly to the demise of Charles Clarke, the former right hon. Member for Norwich South. We heard no apology for that policy, which took up a lot of time and destabilised local police authorities and forces without any—let us remember this—proper, meaningful consultation with local people, elected councillors or others. So the shadow Home Secretary is gilding the lily by attacking the Government for having the temerity to put forward proposals, with checks and balances, for directly elected officials, who will be responsible for policing and crime in their local areas.

There is also selective amnesia in quoting the Audit Commission. Its most recent publication, “Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service”, stated that

“the scrutiny and challenge of spending has so far been poor. Public debate and political interest has focused more on increasing police officer numbers, with a simple equation that more is better”.

On that subject, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on his wise words on the balance between inputs and outputs in policing and crime reduction. The Audit Commission also made a damning indictment of the previous Government’s paradigm of always spending more of taxpayers’ money without looking at the results:

“there is no evidence that high spending is delivering improved productivity”.

It would be unkind and churlish to say that everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong. There was consensus on many areas—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on that. Of course, we support the proposal enunciated in the December 2009 White Paper, “Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed”, on minimum service standards, gang injunctions, protecting witnesses and communities from intimidation and focusing much more on the victims of antisocial behaviour. Who could disagree with that? But that was after 13 years of judicial activism, legislative activism, more quangos, more reports and a failure to free up police so that they can deliver what they need to deliver.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman kindly accept that between 1997 and 2010, crime fell by 43%? The coalition Government’s measures put that at risk and buck that trend. The chief constable in my area is concerned about the measures about to be taken by this coalition Government—is the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Jackson]

There is not a scrap of empirical or academic evidence to support the hon. Gentleman’s views at the moment, although there might be in 18 months. If one asks chief constables, “Are you desperate to spend less money in your police force?”, surprise, surprise, they will probably say no. It is a matter of regret that some chief constables are engaging in a political debate, when they should be thinking in more innovative ways about delivering more for the people whom they serve and not debating issues and speculating about hypotheses that are unproven.

If Labour Members were as fair-minded as I have been today—I see the wry smile on the face of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson); we seem to cross swords in police debates fairly regularly—they would admit that they had supported many aspects in our radical reform of policing. There will probably be mergers of small police forces based on local agreement, which the Labour party has supported, although it went about it the wrong way. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we cannot continue with a situation where it takes 11 and a half hours to process an arrest, and where 11 to 14% of the police are on the beat, as compared with the 22% who are processing paperwork in the police station. We have to think about the overhaul of health and safety and its impact on the working conditions and operations of police forces, and about the terms and conditions of police officer enforcement. We have to be more transparent in the way that we involve people.

I pay tribute to the sincerity of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is obviously greatly involved in her local community. However, closing the circle or completing the equation, as it were, will also mean having transparency and openness in crime data, and particularly crime figures in local areas, because whether we like it or not, people often do not believe Government crime figures. In answer to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the British crime survey can be criticised. It is not perfect and, in particular, it overlooks the impact of crime on young people.

We will make a commitment with our directly elected police commissioners, and there will be checks and balances in place, which is important—these are not going to “Rambo” figures. Incidentally, as the right hon. Member for Delyn knows, in my maiden speech, on 6 June 2005—he can read it in Hansard if he wishes and if he has nothing better to do—I called for an elected police commissioner in Peterborough and for commissioners throughout the country. I have always consistently believed in having them, not because I want “Rambo” or “RoboCop” figures, but because policing is such an important area of our national life that we must involve people. People from abroad look at us and think, “Why are they not doing it in the UK?”—direct democracy, because it matters to local people.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003—1 million alcohol-related crimes in 2009-10; 47% of all violent crimes fuelled by alcohol; 6.6 million alcohol-related attendances at hospital accident and emergency; 1.2 million ambulance call-outs as a direct result of alcohol, costing £372 million; and an entire indicative cost of £8 billion to £30 billion. We all see the problem every day in our constituencies. Just this week, a senior judge in Peterborough referred to the carnage in Peterborough city centre caused by alcohol-related violence as the reason why decent, law-abiding people and families did not want to come into the city centre. The problem is not wholly the fault of the previous Government, but they did not tackle the issue as effectively and robustly as they could have done.

Let me finish by supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and others on resources. We can deliver a better service by sharing resources, leasing premises, and using specialist support services such as management, payroll and human resources services. There is consensus on that. We also have to tackle overtime, but not with the platitudinous undertakings that the previous Government gave. As in so many other areas, we need to take tough decisions as a result of the previous Government’s legacy.

Unless the Labour party moves on from the paradigm in which more tax, more spending, more quangos and fleecing the taxpayer can provide a better service, it will not deserve to be re-elected to government or to serve the people of this country. We have a responsibility now, and it falls to the coalition Government to tackle the endemic issues in the police service, so that our constituents can be protected at a cost that they can afford.

16:01

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I want to concentrate on those constituencies that have suffered from high crime rates over different periods of time. Those high crime rates not only affect the constituents in those areas but have big implications for the rest of the country. Without doubt, my constituency has been one such area. It is good to see in her place the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who also represents the borough of Haringey. She will be familiar with these issues.

Tottenham has a history of riots, and there has been deep concern recently about knife and gun crime. We have recently had some big debates about security, and many hon. Members will be familiar with the significant problems at the Finsbury Park mosque, which is on the edge of my constituency, four or five years ago. Because of the nature of multi-cultural Tottenham, the most significant criminal justice issue in the lead-up to the election of the Labour Government in 1997 was the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

I have come to the conclusion that crime largely comes from one thing and one thing alone: poverty. I am talking about poverty of ambition and aspiration; poverty relating to education; poverty of employment; poverty where communities break down; and, sometimes, poverty relating to parenting. The nature of today’s debate is hugely significant for people outside this place, and the resources allocated to deal with the problems, not just within the Home Office but across government, will be hugely significant over the next few years.

I am very proud that, when we look back over the past 10 years, we can see the huge progress that has been made, despite the challenges, in my constituency and in similar constituencies across the country. Many people in constituencies such as Tottenham were acutely concerned—even suspicious, frankly—of the Metropolitan police in previous decades, but they now say that, although their experience of policing is not perfect, they have moved from seeing a police force to seeing a police service.

At the forefront of that police service has been neighbourhood policing and the police community support officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is absolutely right to say that neighbourhood policing has made a huge difference to people’s confidence in reporting crime and their ability to relate to police officers, and to our attempts to get officers on to the beat.

Alongside that sense of having a police service must be the presence of the police in the community, and that is why we have all welcomed the extra police numbers. They have been particularly manifest in the London borough of Haringey. The borough had suffered historically because it was an outer-London borough, and inner-London boroughs always had more police officers than we did. Under successive Mayors and Labour Home Secretaries, however, the outer-London boroughs benefited from more police officers. We should be very concerned indeed—and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green should also be very concerned—that the Mayor proposes to cut police numbers in London by 455 over the forthcoming period. What effect will that have on the significant issues that exist in a constituency such as mine?

When we relate this problem to the poverty of aspiration and ambition and to the issue of how we lift communities up, we must also recognise the huge amount of work done by communities, particularly on knife and gun crime. I am thinking of someone like Nims Obunge, chair of the Peace Alliance, which started in the London borough of Haringey and grew to affect much of London and now has influence in different inner-city areas across the country. It is an alliance of civil society, with people coming together to stand up and say no to violent crime—and it is having an effect. I know it is having an effect because the figures are clear. Gun crime was down by 28% in my constituency last year and knife crime down by just under 20%.

That shows the sort of effect it can have when local people take ownership and work alongside the police. What will happen to the funding for projects like that and others such as the “Value Life” project, led by young people in my constituency at the Gladesmore school? They rely on funding, which will be needed for the years ahead if the level of cuts weighed up and suggested by the Home Office come about. What will happen to the statutory services that all local authorities will have to review in this period?

We know what sort of budgets will get cut. I am particularly worried about the funding available to young people beyond school. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for the work she did when she was responsible for policing. The provision of positive activities for young people, particularly during the summer period, is important, so the money we put in to support young people and ensure that they have things to do is crucial. What will happen to those funds over the coming period?

Some really significant issues of security are at stake. We should think back to those images of the Finsbury Park mosque four or five years ago. What is going to happen to the Prevent fund and to all the work that has gone into turning a mosque like that around and to support the young people and communities within it? What will it all mean for the crime statistics and for ordinary people in this country?

The Government are taking a backward step. The decision to cut the state is ideological and it will have huge consequences. The decision—failing to ensure that Home Office front-line services are protected in difficult economic times—is the wrong one, and we will all suffer as a consequence of it.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

No, I will not.

I ask the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to think very carefully over the coming months about these issues, which are critical for constituencies like mine. Such constituencies rely on Home Office funding. They rely on supporting, not cutting, police numbers. They rely on community policing, not the diminution of such policing. They rely particularly on supporting young people who, in the absence of proper and effective community policing, are vulnerable to being seduced by various threats.

16:10

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a subject that is so close to my heart, as I served for eight years in the Lothian and Borders police. I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who spoke with so much passion, and I agree with much of what he said. Neighbourhood policing is an aim that we share; we differ only in the way in which we seek to deliver it.

When I first expressed an interest in joining the police 25 years ago, the general reaction was, “Well, you’ve got the height for it”, as if being tall were the defining characteristic of a good police officer. Other stereotypes also do nothing to help the debate on policing. Dixon never actually policed Dock Green, and Sam Tyler did not actually go back to 1970s Manchester. [Hon. Members: “Really?”] No, he really did not.

In fact, every day police officers not only deal with crime, but fulfil the role of part-time social workers, youth workers, marriage guidance counsellors, tourist information officers, crime prevention officers, licensing officers and, yes, dog-catchers, a role that has become tragically relevant in recent weeks. All those roles are important to the general public, as they are performed by those whom the public would describe as “beat bobbies”. Survey after survey shows that many people’s top priority is to see more bobbies on the beat, but where is the evidence to show that that is effective? Scotland’s police numbers per capita are roughly average, but it unfortunately suffers from a higher-than-average level of crime. The simplistic argument has been that if crime numbers are to be reduced, the number of police must be increased, as if a direct proportionality existed—a point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley).

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting an interesting theory, which I do not think I have heard before. When the Liberal Democrats spoke of putting an extra 3,000 police on the beat, was that not something to do with reducing crime?

[Mike Crockart]

It was a policy with which I did not necessarily always agree. I have argued long and hard—Members will not find my words in Hansard, but they will find them in other places—against the use of the term “bobbies on the beat” as a catch-all silver bullet that would solve every crime-related problem, because it simply will not. The problem is far more than that, as I shall explain shortly.

That simplistic argument confuses the presence of police with what should be our real aim: the absence of crime. Labour Members have argued today that a decrease in police numbers will inevitably and necessarily mean an increase in crime, but that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Belgium has more police officers per capita than Scotland but has a higher crime rate, while Switzerland has fewer police officers but a lower crime rate. The three European countries with the lowest number of police per capita are Sweden, Norway and Finland, which could hardly be described as crime-ridden countries. According to figures published today in The Scotsman, the detection rate has not moved by a single percentage point in the last year despite the presence of a record number of police officers. Instead of focusing on the number of officers, we should pay more attention to how those officers are used and deployed, and how their priorities are set and monitored.

When I left the police 13 years ago, there was much talk of cutting bureaucracy, freeing up police officers’ time, and using technology to enable more efficient working. Thirteen years on, however, the HMIC report that has been quoted so extensively today states that the “visibly available” police level is still, on average, only 11%—although in some forces it has fallen as low as 6%—and that as little as 13% of the time of those who are available is spent patrolling. The report also states that those police officers are still tied down by mountains of paperwork and central directives. In 2009 alone, 2,600 pages of official guidance on aspects of police work were issued, at an estimated policing cost of £2.2 billion per year. Moreover, the report states that the police are involved in dealing with any one crime on an incredible 40 occasions, from point of arrest to conviction. That does not sound like progress or efficiency to me. This then is the opportunity: not the simplistic position of some Opposition Members that if there is a problem we throw more money at it, but that we find a better, more efficient model for deploying existing resources. The involvement of local people in setting local priorities and helping to achieve them is key to this change.

I will save my views on the specific issue of police commissioners for another debate, but I believe that the direction of travel is the right one. Indeed, many police services are already moving in this direction on their own. In my home force of Lothian and Borders individual police officers are assigned to areas mirroring council wards and a divisional superintendent sits alongside council departments in partnership to set priorities. We should contrast that with the official model of priority setting: the police board for Lothian and Borders covers five council areas and the chair of that board represents only a small section of one of those authorities. How can local priority-setting come from a model like that?

West Midlands police has reorganised itself along council boundaries, and Sussex police cars are marked as “Brighton and Hove”, “Eastbourne” and “Lewes”, but this is still piecemeal reform and it will not deliver the savings needed or the increased localism wanted in the years to come.

We need to have proper reform to create larger, more efficient, professional police forces. That must, of course, be done by local agreement, and there must also be the ability within these forces for day-to-day operational decisions to be devolved down to a much lower level and to be made accountable through stronger and more transparent ties with local elected officials. Big police services do not have to be distant from public opinion and priorities.

In Scotland, we are already beginning to think the unthinkable: we are considering having a national police service with 32 operational divisions matching local authority boundaries, where local priorities are set in association with locally elected officials. That would be a far more efficient model that could deliver significant savings and a locally focused service as well as allow a national joined-up response to areas such as serious organised crime and national security. I hope we in Scotland will go down that route, and perhaps it is time for other Members to consider such a system for England and Wales.

16:17

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate addressing issues that affect every one of our communities, and it is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who gave a thoughtful analysis, particularly in respect of big organisations not necessarily having to be remote and the possibility of their being underpinned by responsive local units, which is interesting in terms of policy development.

In common with many Opposition Members, I am disappointed and frustrated by the Government’s decision not to protect the funds for front-line policing. It has frequently been said today that, if Labour had won the election, we would have had to make cuts, and that is absolutely right, but the shadow Home Secretary was very clear that the cuts in the Home Office would have come from changing overtime patterns and from looking at procurement and issues such as effectiveness, productivity and efficiency, and that they certainly would not have come from neighbourhood police teams, police community support officers and all the other things every one of our constituents values. This Government need to think long and hard before cutting the number of police officers and PCSOs, who are the backbone of our police service at local level.

I want to say a few words about the Home Secretary’s recent speech at Coin street, in which she declared that it is time to move beyond the antisocial behaviour order. I understand that this Government are desperate to paint everything they have inherited from Labour as unfit for purpose, but I think that in respect of ASBOs they are putting politics before people. Over the last 13 years as Member of Parliament for Salford and as Police Minister and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I have seen at first hand the damage that antisocial behaviour can cause to communities, with gangs thinking that they rule their estates and are the rule of law, and with innocent and vulnerable families being intimidated and harassed. The whole quality of life of a community can be brought down by the actions of a few.

I well remember the days when the police would turn up and officers would simply say, “I’m really sorry, but there’s nothing I can do. I haven’t got the powers to be able to deal with these ‘low-level, petty’ crimes, so there’s nothing I can do to help you and your family.” That is exactly why we introduced ASBOs in the first place—so that they could be part of a range of tools to tackle what were becoming intolerable pressures on communities.

The Home Secretary has talked about antisocial behaviour orders being a top-down, centralised mechanism from Whitehall, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Home Office guidance actually says:

“It is for local agencies to decide on the most appropriate intervention for tackling antisocial behaviour based on…what will work best locally.”

Local agencies do use ASBOs in very different ways: the approach is sometimes very different in inner-city areas, such as my constituency, from the approach taken in some rural areas up and down the country, and that is as it should be. Local agencies, including the local council and the probation service—all those people who work together—should be asking, “What is the problem? What range of tools do we have to deal with it? Where can they most appropriately be deployed?” In some cases, that will involve acceptable behaviour contracts, exclusion orders or parenting orders. We have introduced a good set of tools to tackle these problems, so to try to pretend that ASBOs are some kind of top-down, Whitehall-imposed mechanism is simply wrong.

In Greater Manchester, extensive use has been made of these powers and the result has been very impressive; we have brought safety and security to people who felt that they had been abandoned by the police in the past. In Salford, the level of antisocial behaviour has fallen year on year; since 2006, it has reduced by 22.6%, which is a massive shift. Crime and antisocial behaviour was the biggest issue facing my constituents, but in the past couple of years more people have moved into Salford than have left, reversing a trend of the past quarter of a century. One of the fundamental reasons why people are now moving to the city is that they feel safe and secure. It is a great place to live, and businesses and families are coming to it. Without the powers on tackling antisocial behaviour, we would not have reached that point.

Of course, I would be the last person to say that those powers are a silver bullet or the complete solution, because they are not and they have their flaws. The breach rate is pretty high, but that is going to be the case because ASBOs are often used on people who are out of control, people who are prolific offenders with hundreds of incidents behind them and, as the shadow Home Secretary said, people who have reached the severe end of punishment after many other approaches have been tried. Even so, more than 40% of ASBOs are not breached—the antisocial behaviour stops. Let us also look beyond the headline figures. When action is taken after a first breach, 65% of people stop their antisocial behaviour. The figure is 86% in respect of a second breach and, provided action is taken, after three breaches nearly 95% of people say, “Okay, enough is enough, we are going to start behaving reasonably.” So we have to persevere and we have to give ASBOs a chance to work. In conjunction with the range of other programmes available, including family intervention projects, which have been one of the most innovative things that we have done, bringing all the services together to tackle the underlying problems of antisocial behaviour, ASBOs have meant that we have been pretty effective.

Protecting people so that they can live in peace and safety in their communities has to be the top priority of any Government, and the Home Secretary has to live up to that challenge. If her desire to re-examine the powers on tackling antisocial behaviour is about making things easier and simpler, and about stripping out the bureaucracy, sorting out the criminal justice system and making sure that we are not mired in all of that difficulty, she will have my support in doing that. If, however, it means that we are going to water ASBOs down, diluting them, making them more difficult to obtain and putting obstacles in the way of the police and local authorities, I will oppose that tooth and nail, because our responsibility is to protect the communities that we serve.

We have heard a lot today about the further regulation of CCTV. I am none the wiser as to what “further regulation” means, but I know that CCTV, in my city and up and down the country, has made a huge difference to protecting local people. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) confirmed that she wanted less CCTV, whereas other Members have said that they do not want that. I am not sure what the coalition view is, but this is beginning to sound like a jigsaw of policies to me and I would welcome some clarity.

In March, an incident in Eccles was caught on CCTV. Six violent males with a huge history of prolific offending were involved in a stabbing, and the information was collected on CCTV. Two of the men were seen in possession of large kitchen knives, waving them around and going into a store. A stabbing took place and no complaint was made—the person who was stabbed did not want to co-operate with the police—and the only possible evidence was from the CCTV. As a result, a prosecution was brought. They were charged with section 18 wounding, violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon. They were sentenced to two years in prison and received ASBOs on conviction that prevent them from associating in the future. None of that would have been possible without access to the information from the CCTV.

[Anna Soubry]

The right hon. Lady will know that I said that I want fewer CCTV cameras. That should be the aim of everybody in this Chamber, because people should be able to walk the streets free from the fear of crime and from actual crime. That should be our ultimate aim. She makes a big mistake if she thinks that CCTV is some great panacea. In my experience as a criminal barrister, in many cases involving CCTV evidence, I have had clients who have told me that they went down that alleyway to commit the offence because there was no CCTV. The danger of CCTV is that it pushes criminality down the alleyways into other places. The real solution is to tackle the causes of crime.

[Hazel Blears]

Well, I wish the hon. Lady the best of British luck when she goes to her constituents and says, “We’ll do nothing for years and years; we must tackle the issue of the causes of crime.” Of course we must, but if she wants to stand up in front of her voters and say that she wants to see less CCTV in her community, I wish her all the luck in the world in putting forward that argument—it certainly would not wash with my constituents in Salford.

The Government’s policy on DNA is an absolute mistake. The shadow Home Secretary has gone through all the detailed evidence on that and the overriding factor for me is the fact that in Scotland the Scottish police want to change to the system that we were promoting. They see that it makes sense, that it is evidence-based and that it will result in the capture of more serious murderers and rapists. Some 10% of the 800 people who were caught through DNA would have escaped under the Government’s proposed system and the prospect of having 80 murderers and rapists roaming the streets of this country who could have been brought to justice is one that I would find difficult to defend.

The list goes on. Not only will we have cuts to funding, but we will have cuts to police powers on antisocial behaviour, CCTV and DNA. I want to say some words about the most serious threat that faces our communities and about counter-terrorism. What happened on 7 July brought fear to our communities and devastation to many families. I would say to the Government that there is no easy way to combat terrorism. The threat to the UK has not diminished and that is why, when we are considering the review of counter-terrorism powers, we must be extremely careful to get the balance right between security and liberty and must not be tempted to shy away from difficult and sometimes controversial choices, such as control orders, that are not easy but might be necessary to protect our citizens from harm. When the Government are considering that review, I urge them to be prepared to think very carefully about getting that balance right.

We have talked about the cuts in police numbers. I understand that in Greater Manchester that would lead to something like 300 fewer police on our streets, which would have a huge impact in our city.

My final point is about coherence. When we were in government, we did not do everything perfectly. I am sure that we did not succeed in everything that we wanted to do. However, we had a strategy to tackle every level of crime in this country, from antisocial behaviour to crimes against the person, serious and organised crime and terrorism. I do not feel that under this Government we have any kind of coherent strategy in place at all. It is about cuts, about pandering to this lobby and about caving in to this bit of populism. I genuinely feel that, if we are to protect the people of this country and to meet the highest responsibility of Government, we need a proper strategy. We will have less money, fewer powers, less effectiveness, more crime and less safety for the people whom we represent.

16:29

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate because before the general election earlier this year I gave my views in Great Yarmouth on the importance and benefits of a directly elected police commission. I appreciate the chance to speak about that today. I also want to touch on the fact that I agree with a point made by one of my hon. Friends earlier: it seems somewhat surreal, having sat through the opening speeches today, to have been part of what felt like a hustings for the shadow Cabinet.

We have listened to the way in which statistics are rolled out, which can be useful in looking at the history and in planning, but what I am interested in and what I like about the Government’s policy at the moment is that it is considering how we move forward to deal with issues in the future. Policy needs to move forward with the times. It is important that we look forward and understand the situation that we are in, as some of my hon. Friends have eloquently pointed out. We have an economic inheritance that we have to deal with and, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members and as my hon. Friends have said, even a Labour Government would have had to make substantial cuts. With the comprehensive spending review coming up, the Government are going to have to take tough decisions, but I hope that they will, as the Budget made clear, be fair and allow us to retain important front-line services.

In my time as a candidate and in my days as a relatively new Member of Parliament, I have found it enlightening to see and understand how the police work, particularly the police in Great Yarmouth. Many of us in Norfolk have long felt—I know that other Members have made this point before me—that because we are a rural community, because the county is not seen as being a high-crime area and because the police authority is small, our area has not had as much funding as it should have had. We have almost been left to our own devices and we feel left out in a way. However, we in Great Yarmouth are fortunate to have an excellent superintendent who has been considering out-of-the-box ideas about how to move forward and who has been working with the community to deal with and to prevent crime, helping to bring it down. That superintendent is still in place and is doing fantastic work.

When one looks at some of the work that is going on with community groups such as the Kickz project, which works with the police, local authorities, the local community and Norwich City football club, one sees that it is providing phenomenal opportunities to young people and is dealing with some of the antisocial behaviour. If my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has time in the near future, will he come to Great Yarmouth to see at first hand the phenomenal work that the Kickz project is doing, including very good work in really deprived areas? It is a very good example of how crime can be dealt with, of how the police are working with the community and of some of the things they can do. What interests me about releasing the police from some of the bureaucracy, red tape and tick-box culture that they have had is what a police team such as mine in Great Yarmouth will then be able to achieve, given what it has been doing already. I am excited about the opportunities and the benefits that will come when the team is really let loose to deliver.

When I did a night shift with police in Great Yarmouth, what really stuck in my mind was not just the plethora of paperwork that I had to sign and that they had to deal with on a daily basis for every little part of their job—one officer made a joke as an aside, but I understood his point, that there is even a form for them to fill in if they want to use the bathroom—but the most important point that they made to me, which was about the time that they have to take away from being on the beat to deal with any single issue. The example they gave was that, if someone broke a window after a night out in Great Yarmouth, to arrest them and to deal with the paperwork and telephone calls could take two officers off the beat for up to seven hours. Let us strip away that kind of bureaucracy and let the police get on with doing their job more efficiently and effectively. I fully support keeping more officers visibly on the beat, doing their job and fighting crime, which is what they want to do, what they are trained to do and what they do so well for us, rather than filling in paperwork back at the office.

I was interested to hear an Opposition Member mention the changes that are coming to the Audit Commission, particularly after yesterday’s exchanges. I must make a similar point to one that I made in the Chamber yesterday: losing that input from the Audit Commission can only be good news for the police, as it is for our local authorities, because they will be able to do more about servicing their residents and keeping the streets safe if they have to worry a little less about ticking a box for an appointed quango such as the Audit Commission.

Like other hon. Members who have made this point, I like the idea of police authorities moving over to having directly elected commissioners because of the transparency that will bring and the clear signal it will send about who is responsible. In the past few years, one thing that I have found that frustrates residents is not knowing who, across Government Departments, is responsible or accountable. One thing that we have suffered from more than anything in this country is the ability of the Government simply to move accountability away, through different layers of bureaucracy, red tape, agencies, quangos and different bodies. People feel that police authorities fall into that category because they generally do not know who the chairman of their police authority is.

I am fortunate that we have a good chairman, who will no doubt love the fact that I am talking in favour of police commissioners, given that we had a disagreement about that before the general election. That person is a councillor appointed by the county council, so he has political power behind him—the appointment is effectively political. It will be a real step forward, however, if we give local communities the direct ability to say who they want. If that person does a good job, they can then be brought back but, more importantly, people will know who is responsible and accountable, and there will be no hiding behind a Government quango, an appointed county council body or any other authority. In my experience, the police understand that that will not affect their day-to-day operational power to do their job. The proposal could therefore mean that there would be little practical change to their operational work compared with the situation under the police authority. The big advantage of the proposal will be clear and transparent accountability for the public, the importance of which we should never underestimate.

When the new licensing laws came in, I was excited about having the ability to start getting to grips with the pub culture in the area that I represented as a councillor, so I was hugely disappointed when we discovered that nothing could have been further from the truth and that it was almost impossible to curtail even the opening hours of some public houses. Changing the licensing laws will allow local authorities to do what most residents think that they can do: create policy and start to map out sensible ideas on controlling licensing hours and licensed premises in their areas. That can be only a good thing, which is why I fully support the Government’s proposals.

We have a major hospital in Great Yarmouth, so I have seen the impact of alcohol-related crime in an accident and emergency department. Alcohol also has knock-on effects throughout the health service, as hon. Members have said, and it can result in costs to the community and the health service directly. If our new policies can address that problem, we will make huge economic savings and communities can move forward. We could also make progress on dealing with the teenage pregnancy problem in Great Yarmouth because that is something on which alcohol clearly has a huge impact.

I look at the situation from the point of view of what my residents want. I want them not only to be safe on their streets and in their homes, but to feel safe on their streets and in their homes. If they know who is responsible for decisions about local policing and see police officers working on the street to solve crimes, rather than dealing with bureaucracy and a tick-box culture, it will be a great step forward. From spending time with the police and seeing the extent to which their work is intelligence-based, I know that they are a huge asset to our community, so if our community is able to see more of them because they are doing less paperwork, that can only be for the better, which is why I fully support the Government’s stance.

16:38

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

If local people in Islwyn and others throughout the country were to draw up a wish list, I am sure that a request for more police officers would be at the top of it. If police officers are seen on the beat, the public not only are seen to be protected, but feel protected.

It is an absolute duty of the Government to protect the public through investment in our police service and by building strong and secure communities in which the law-abiding majority are supported and the vulnerable protected. That is why I worry about the message that the Government send to the general public when they talk about cuts in police numbers. Cuts affect not only police numbers on the ground, but the organisations that have been set up to combat crime and antisocial behaviour.

In Islwyn, the Safer Caerphilly community safety partnership scheme works with local partners to reduce crime and disorder, antisocial behaviour, substance misuse and the fear of crime. I was worried when the Home Secretary said that we lived in a high-crime country because what message does that send to people who are fearful of crime? The big issue is not so much crime itself, but the fact that people are afraid of walking down the street and becoming a victim, however real or imagined the risk is.

Our partnership has improved local policing and community safety since it was set up five years ago. The scheme has been hugely successful, especially at reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt that such schemes were instrumental in the 43% reduction in crime between 1997 and 2010. I know that not everything was perfect under the Labour Government, but even the most sceptical or cynical person would say that that is an impressive record of which we should be proud.

The Safer Caerphilly community safety partnership faces an uncertain future because of fears about funding. Gwent police authority has made it clear to me that the planned cuts in police funding would significantly impede the police’s ability to maintain the high standards for which they are renowned. Senior police officers in my constituency are adamant that if funding for the Safer Caerphilly community safety partnership scheme is pulled, the ability of local officers to keep a grip on criminal and antisocial activity and maintain community relations, which is so important, would be severely hampered.

Gwent police have already reduced their budget by 8% in the past 12 months through efficiency savings. Of their current budget, totalling some £120 million, staff costs account for 83%. Tinkering with cost outlays such as uniforms, patrol cars and everything else that goes with policing would not be enough to meet the Government’s spending reduction targets. Inevitably, cuts would have to be made to police numbers. It is clear that a reduction in funding would make it operationally almost impossible for police authorities to maintain their current effectiveness in areas such as prevention of crime, civil disorder, terrorism and antisocial behaviour and the promotion of community cohesion. The question we must ask ourselves is: how will the budget deficit be tackled—surely not by risking the safety and, indeed, the lives of the law-abiding majority who play by the rules? Officers have also expressed to me their dismay at the Government’s plans to scrap the policing pledge—a policy introduced in 2008 that is widely seen as having driven up standards, as well as accountability and public confidence in the police nationwide.

At the same time as the cuts, the Government are setting up a hugely expensive plan for the introduction of popularly elected police commissioners. Essentially, that will make a politician head of the police force, with the same mandate as we have. I am sure that they will follow policies that they think are popular, however short term they are and however damaging they may be. It seems nonsensical to me that, on Monday, the Government introduced a Bill that aims to reduce the number of politicians in this House, but they want to create more jobs for politicians. Police authorities around the country have condemned the proposal. Fortunately for all of us here, we live in a climate where there is little public appetite for more elections, but unless the policy is seriously thought out and Ministers put some meat on the bones of the policy this evening, we run the risk of seeing the election to key positions in public life of wholly unqualified maverick extremists whom we all know in our local areas.

Furthermore, elected police commissioners would require significant and costly staffing assistance. Such staffing is not provided for in the Government’s plans. That is why I am asking for more detail. Perhaps I am being cynical, or perhaps that is an example of a lack of serious thought being given to the proposal. I am worried—the policy is truly radical, yet no information is coming down to us. It is important, not just for us as politicians, but for police authorities and superintendents, to know what elected police commissioners will do. In August, members of Gwent police authority told me that they had received no information—they do not know how the police commissioners will be established.

The Government have provided no evidence for why the reform is necessary, or why the current system is in need of change. None the less, they seem intent on carrying out a costly and untested reorganisation of policing in England and Wales. Bringing politics into day-to-day policing and law enforcement is nothing short of a dangerous move. It is my serious fear that the sensitive and emotive nature of criminal justice will, in many cases, lead to reactionary, short-term populism from a police commissioner who has his eye on his next election.

[Robert Halfon]

What the hon. Gentleman says is somewhat surprising to me. Surely, by his logic, any election could produce an extremist. I do not believe that the British people would vote in that way. The idea of having an elected commissioner is to ensure that there is a local person accountable to the local population that the police serve.

[Chris Evans]

On the question of accountability, the point that I am driving at is that we will be electing a politician, and I envisage—indeed, I am sure—that only political parties will be able to fund a campaign for the post of police commissioner. I cannot see an ordinary person from the community having the money or the resources to become a police commissioner, so the measure will only introduce politics into policing.

That point brings me on to another, because we could see a situation in which certain groups spread fear about others for the simple purpose of electoral advantage. Young people might be demonised, as they are all the time in the press, and that has no place in modern society, so I urge the Government to look again at the proposal and give it some serious consideration.

I have tried to be brief, and in closing I must say that people want to feel safe. They want to know that, should they become a victim of crime, they can look to the police to protect them, so I say to the Government, do not risk the safety of the public by introducing such swingeing cuts.

16:46

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I have spent a lot of time in my constituency since being elected three or four months ago, and during the recess I managed to meet and have a good discussion with two chief constables. Indeed, I am very lucky to have two very good chief constables residing in my constituency. We have some tough times ahead, as they know, but they struck me as two powerful individuals who know where they can make a difference in their forces.

We will have to make cuts of 20%, but the two chief constables struck me as business people who realise that times are bad. This is not the first time that we have been in this position, and those cuts have to be made. Some 85% of the police budget goes on people, so there will inevitably be a reduction in numbers, but just because there is going to be a reduction in police numbers and in recruitment, that does not necessarily mean that crime will go up. They went through in detail how they were planning and hoping to limit the effect on front-line policing.

[Toby Perkins]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s conversation, because I am sure that many Members have met their local chief constables. He mentioned that they would be able to limit the effect of the reductions that we will have to make, but did they explain what they would have to do? Will the hon. Gentleman touch on what they said they would no longer be able to do? I am interested to hear that they did at least admit that the cuts would affect the service that they are going to provide.

[Graham Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. They went on to talk about backroom staff and how they can reduce significant labour costs among the back office, civilian staff whom the police employ. They also discussed putting back on to the beat those policemen who, for whatever reason, undertake back-office duties.

Unnecessary paperwork also keeps front-line police officers in the station, and the two chief constables talked about ways of reducing it, as the House has discussed over the past few hours, and ensuring that officers return to front-line services. I do not try to paint a pretty picture, however, because there are some difficult decisions to make. Those chief constables have to make them, but they are going to do their utmost to ensure that front-line services are not affected.

I come from a business background and have personal experience of trying to cut costs while adding value and ensuring that, at the front end, customers do not see the consequences of those cuts. The police are in a very good position to do something similar. Time will tell, but I hope that it bears out my belief that the situation is not as gloomy as some people say it is. However, there are some difficult decisions to make.

Having spent some time with the two chief constables, I visited Runcorn police station, where a new inspector was in town. He told me that he was bringing a new broom out of the cupboard and going through the police station. He had managed to increase the clear-up rate in that area by 20% within a few short weeks. I asked him what sorts of things he did to enable him to achieve that, and he said that he had found that there was misinterpretation of correct procedures and of who are the best people to clear up the casework. I was struck by the fact that there are examples of best practice that can be shared between divisions and, indeed, police forces. Many police forces do not communicate with one another. If cases of best practice were communicated between one constabulary and another, efficiency savings could be made.

A lot of it can be down to leadership and management. A sergeant in Runcorn who had been in the Cheshire constabulary for 25 years told me that he had spent most of his career arresting members of the same family. I found it quite disturbing that one could spend a 25-year career arresting the grandfathers and fathers of the same family. I cannot help feeling that we do not go to the core of the problem of continuous crime. Antisocial behaviour orders have a lot of merit. However, unless we get in to see the families who have blighted the community of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and so many communities in my constituency, and stop them repeating these crimes, it goes on and on, with three generations of the same family being unemployed, facing social deprivation, and causing unnecessary and disproportionate problems within their communities. If we could get into these families, one by one, their communities would not have these problems.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Of course we must keep our eye on the public sector deficit, but I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating the fact that the Gloucestershire constabulary will end up with more policemen out and about as a result of reforms driven by the recent expenditure announcements. That is good news for the good people of Stroud, Dursley, Cam and elsewhere. There are more policemen out and about compared with last year, which is great news.

[Graham Evans]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution.

If we keep on arresting and dealing with the same families within the same communities, we will keep on going round in circles and having these conversations time and again in years to come.

I pay tribute to some of the good work that was done by right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches during their time in government, with measures such as Sure Start, which gets into families at a very early stage to try to give them the best start in life, so that as the children grow older they should become responsible citizens. In my experience as a police officer, and when speaking to the police officers in the Cheshire constabulary, I have found that too many young people go off the rails too soon. That is why I would like some of the good work of Sure Start to be followed up. Other agencies, working with the police, need to get involved in getting individuals off drug and alcohol abuse. Jobcentre Plus should get involved with these people to try to get them making a proactive and genuine contribution to the communities that they have blighted. I appreciate that this is a long-term thing that was started by the previous Government during the past 13 years, but an awful lot of work still needs to be done in certain communities in my constituency.

I will be supporting the amendment, because something has to change. Directly elected commissioners may or may not be a good idea that may or may not work. In my experience as a police constable, having worked in these communities, I have seen that the Cheshire constabulary is doing a good job, but I believe it could do better, and I would like directly elected commissioners to be given at least a fighting chance.

16:54

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I open by saying that I agreed with much of the contribution of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). It is interesting that both he and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) talked about good practice being carried out by police officers in their communities. On that basis, it is clear that the Labour Government have not totally prevented good practice over the past 13 years.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and other colleagues have said, we would never say that everything is perfect. There will never be a perfect way to tackle crime, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said. However, when it comes to challenging crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities, the cup is half full, if not even more. There has been a change in attitudes towards law and order over a number of years.

I welcome the examples of best practice that have been given, and they have occurred partly because of the direction that the Labour Government provided. We were more focused on community policing and on the police working with other organisations, whether they are local authorities or, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said, football clubs. In making important changes, we recognised that tackling crime and disorder in our communities could not be the preserve of police officers alone.

As a former Home Office Minister, I feel frustrated about the challenge of making best practice more mainstream. I was interested when I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), because as a Home Office Minister back in 2003 I visited Wales. That was some years ago now, but I saw there examples of the type of community and neighbourhood policing that we have thankfully seen in England in recent years. There was an attitude and approach in parts of Wales that was not being picked up elsewhere at the time. Although I have the greatest regard for many people from the Association of Chief Police Officers whom I have met over the years, I believe that it has failed as an organisation to see best practice and say, “This is what we should have more of.”

I link that point to one about accountability. I would not like Government Members to characterise Labour Members who are passionate about tackling crime in our communities as being anti-accountability, or as believing that the current structure of police authorities is perfect. I have said in previous contributions that I am not a cheerleader for the idea that everything is absolutely great.

If we are to talk about the big society, we need to consider how we can give our communities information about best practice so that they have the power to demand more of it. A bogus argument is sometimes made that communities are somehow so different from each other that nothing can be learned. I do not believe that, and I do not believe in reinventing the wheel. Communities should look to other areas to see what has worked and what has not. Yes, they should make the service bespoke for their area if they need to, but for goodness’ sake, they should seize best practice with both hands. If they want to rebrand it, they can get on with doing so, but they should not be so paternalistic and parochial about their own patch that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

I hope that in our discussions in the months ahead about the accountability of the proposed elected commissioners, we will think beyond simply what such a commissioner can do and consider how to ensure that there is accountability, because chief constables also have to be held to account. I attended a lunch a few months ago, before the recess, at which Sir Paul Stephenson spoke. What he said about a number of issues was interesting, and I was intrigued by what he was prepared to admit. When it comes to bureaucracy—I put my hand up and admit that those in government can always do more about it—he said that too often, he had seen his colleagues at the most senior level add layers of bureaucracy over and above what the Government were asking.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, who has now left the Chamber, talked about officers having to fill out a form to use the bathroom, but I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that that was not a diktat from central Government, even if it somehow emerged in his police force. Although we must consider Government bureaucracy, we must also examine ways in which the forces themselves create bureaucracy. That is clear in procurement, with forces being parochial about having their own design of car or uniform that is different from those elsewhere. I wish the coalition Government the best of luck in dealing with that, because it is not easy. There are incredibly strong vested interests in all areas of public policy, including crime and law and order.

I might be out of sync with my Opposition Front Benchers on this, but whatever went wrong, it was a shame that the previous Government did not get to a better place on creating larger police forces. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who talked about a larger force for Scotland while at the same time having local units based on local authority boundaries. I sign up to that. In the last policing debate in which I spoke, I said that people in Doncaster are more interested in what Bob Sanderson is doing—he runs our local police—than in what the chief constable is up to down in Sheffield. The local police force is what counts.

On accountability and neighbourhood policing, I am pleased to report from my experience in Doncaster that although the monthly meetings between the police and members of the community—councillors are also often involved—on how neighbourhood policing teams can best focus on what people are most concerned about had a bit of a rocky start, I am now getting feedback from the police, the public, councillors and those working for local authorities that they are starting to gel and to work. Those meetings are an important part of local accountability, and they are important in ensuring that the police and agencies who work with them understand local policing concerns.

We have heard much discussion of police officers. Departments and outside agencies will face cuts not of 20%, but of anything between 25 and 40% cuts, and we know that 70% of the police budget is spent on paying officers’ wages, so it is impossible that there will not be substantial cuts in police numbers, which I am very concerned about. The Government’s solution—or part of it—is that we should recruit 50,000 additional special constables. I do not know where that figure comes from, but there are currently 15,000 special constables, so expecting an additional 50,000 volunteers is ambitious. The Government also expect those unpaid, part-time volunteers to replace full-time, professional police officers. I worry about that. Special constables make a great contribution, but they are not a substitute. For one thing, they have only to work for a minimum of 16 hours a month, but for another, they must fit their police hours around paid employment and family life. They cannot be required to turn up for work at particular times or on particular days as part of an organised strategy to bear down on the different sorts of crimes that are committed in our neighbourhoods. The truth is that chief constables cannot plan their forces around volunteers.

I agree with my colleagues about CCTV evidence and the DNA database. I am very worried about those tools being undermined, which will undermine police officers’ ability to do their jobs.

Although this is a Home Office debate, we need to touch on penal policy, responsibility for which has been split off to the Ministry of Justice, because punishing crime is an important part of effective policing and dealing with crime in our communities. It is a complicated matter. Prison has many functions, of which rehabilitation is one, but that has not always been carried out as effectively as it ought to have been. However, prison also protects the public from serial and dangerous offenders. We have only to ask police officers to find out about the respite that a community can get if, say, a serial burglar who has committed 40 crimes in a few months is put in prison after everything else has been tried.

We should have an informed debate on policing—it is too important for a back-and-forth debate. I believe that we last had a commission look at the role of the police in 1962, so perhaps it is time to think about another commission. The debate is about more than the deficit; it is about creating a 21st-century police force.

17:04

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and if I may return a compliment that she was good enough to pay to me before the recess, I hope that it is not too long before she makes the journey down from where she sits today on to the Front Bench. It would be stupid for me to stand here as a criminal barrister of 16 years standing and say that nothing was achieved by the last Administration in 13 years. Many of the things that were done were different, new and effective. But between the two sides of the House, there are some fundamental differences of approach that stem from a difference in the philosophies that drive us to our political parties.

Those differences were exemplified for me by the speech by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He said, with some pride, that under the last Government we had established a police service as opposed to a police force. I could not disagree more with that policy and all that was done to achieve it. It has been hugely harmful not only to the police, but to our society, that we now have police officers who are confused about their role. They should be a police force—a presence on our streets—and not part of social services. In some instances, yes, some officers work beautifully and properly with, for example, youth offending teams, and add something to the process. However, as any parent knows, what stops children from doing something that they should not do is not the fear of what might happen to them if they are caught out, but the fear of being caught out. If people do not think that they will ever be caught, they will carry on doing what they should not do. That is why I want to see some fundamental changes in our police force.

I want the police force to be a police force and a presence. They are public servants, paid for by the public and accountable to the public, but I want them to be on the streets making their presence and their force known.

[Mr Lammy]

I respect the manner in which the hon. Lady makes her remarks, but will she acknowledge that my remarks were particular to certain communities and incidents? She will be well aware of the various inquiries and reports that established that the black community in particular was some way from experiencing a police service.

[Anna Soubry]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and, in due course, I will touch on my hopes for a much improved police force.

As a criminal barrister, I could speak for ever about this subject, but the clock is against me. I am pleased that one of the first things that the coalition did, to enable our police officers to get on and do the job that they want to do, was to allow our custody sergeants to charge some minor offences. I would like custody sergeants to revert to having the decision about charge on all matters, working in co-operation with the Crown Prosecution Service. They should take the responsibility that they always used to have for the charges that the accused should face. Changes can always be made as more evidence is gathered and leading counsel and other counsel can also play their part.

We all want to see less form filling and bureaucracy. Opposition Members have to accept that for ordinary police officers—whom many of us have dealt with on almost a daily basis in our working lives—that is a true and real frustration. It holds them back from doing the job that they want to do. We have to restore and build confidence, not just in some of the communities to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham referred, but across Britain. We have to restore the confidence of the public in our police. How many times have Members gone along to a residents’ meeting, or knocked on a door while canvassing, and someone says, “You know what, there’s a real problem with kids hanging around outside the Co-op”? It is called antisocial behaviour, but it is actually often low-level criminality. One hears that complaint and asks, “Well, have you rung up and complained about it?”, but then one hears the riposte, “Well, what’s the point? The police never come out, and if they do come out, they won’t do anything about it, and if they do do anything about, it won’t get to court.” And so it goes on. We have to break that cycle, and that sort of work has to start now. By reducing the form-filling and bureaucracy, we will begin at least to make our police more efficient. However, we have to stop this idea that there is no point in contacting our police because they do not have the time or will to do the job.

When it comes to the police and what they give back, I want to see some big changes in how they think and operate. When police officers commit offences, whether like the assault on Ian Tomlinson that lead to his death or like the case in which a police officer recently received a custodial sentence of six months, I want police officers prosecuted fairly, vigorously and swiftly, just like anybody else. There should be no bounds, and the police must be prosecuted properly.

I also want police officers to be prosecuted when they give perjured evidence in court—[Interruption.] I see hon. Members nodding. I know of the work of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). Like many in the criminal justice system, we have sat in court and heard officers on oath tell lies. That has happened, and we know of it. We also know that they have never been brought to book. That has to change. There is a duty on the Crown Prosecution Service, judges, counsels and solicitors to make those complaints and for them to be taken up, if we are to restore confidence in our police service.

When police officers fail to do their job—I suspect there might be a few more nods of agreement from hon. Members—when they fail to disclose material, as they are statutorily obliged to do, when they fail to seize the CCTV or, if they have seized it, to view it rather than destroy it, or when they fail to disclose it to the defence or put it on to the schedule of material to be disclosed to the defence, those are important matters that should not be left to rest, but must be taken up by the police and acted on in order to restore confidence in our police.

I do not want to sound overly critical of the police, because I have real sympathy for many police officers. In my previous work, I dealt with them on almost a daily basis.

[Graham Evans]

New police officers have a two-year probation period, during which they have to prove themselves to be hard-working, conscientious individuals, and if they get things wrong or do not work hard enough, they can be asked or forced to leave the force. However, after that two-year probation, it is very difficult to remove police constables from the police force, so some police officers can—how shall I put this?—work less hard than others. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. That concerns me. I had a case in my constituency involving somebody whom I thought had been wrongly removed from the police force. He quite rightly said to me—indeed, I knew from my own experience—that many officers had done far worse than him, in my opinion and, more importantly, the opinion of others, but had retained their jobs.

I am concerned about the training of police officers. Why are all police officers not at least taught keyboard skills? Those of us involved in the criminal justice system know that it still takes two police officers to take a section 9 statement. In this day and age, that is bonkers. There must be a better way. Think of how many police hours would be spent back on the streets or doing other work if it did not take two police officers, in most instances, to take a written statement. There must be better ways of doing that.

I am concerned that so many cases are no longer investigated by an officer of the right rank. I was involved in a prosecution case—unusually, because I did not prosecute much—involving a section 20, grievous bodily harm offence. The investigating officer was a police constable who had only come out of his training two years before. I have defended people accused of rape where the investigating officer was a detective constable. I know I sound the age I undoubtedly am, but in my day—many others would say this—a detective inspector always investigated the offence of rape. No disrespect to the many detective constables I know, but what happened in those cases was quite wrong. Rape is a serious offence and it requires a senior officer to investigate it. I am concerned that serious offences such as section 20s are no longer being investigated by properly trained detectives, but by the uniform branch, to use that term. I am far from convinced that things are being properly investigated; in other words, that justice is being done to everybody—victims and those accused.

Let me turn briefly to what underlies this debate, which is the cuts. It is disingenuous of Labour Members not to face up to the reality of their legacy and the situation that we have been left with. Even if they had won back in May, they know in their hearts that they, too, would be faced with a deficit and would have had to make the sort of decisions that the coalition is now making. That would mean chief constables being placed in a position, as they all are, of having to make serious and long-term cuts in their budgets. I have been to see my chief constable. She has spoken to me frankly and we have discussed the situation. I have no doubt that one of the consequences in my county will be a reduction in police stations. That does not please me, but a clever, thoughtful and resourceful chief constable will use this situation as an opportunity to say, “How can we improve the service that we give to people? How do we become a better police force in this county? In facing these cutbacks in our budget, we could actually be brave and radical in how we operate.”

I know that the clock is against me, but I have to respond to what has been said about CCTV cameras and to bundle in something about ASBOs. I have no difficulty with the concept of ASBOs, but I support much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said. They have been used effectively, like CCTV, as a sort of sticking plaster. Let me refer hon. Members briefly to a case that I have in Stapleford, a town in my constituency. We have a problem with antisocial behaviour, and there are those who, if I may say so, do not really think outside the box who say, “Put a CCTV camera up. It’ll solve the problem.” However, it will not, because the trees are overgrown, and even if there were a camera, it would not catch the street. However, the real point is that a CCTV camera will only move the problem on. The real solution, especially to so much youth offending, is to do what we have said we will do, which is look at the causes of crime and begin to tackle the social problems that have led to this increase in criminality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I will extend the amount of time for speeches to 13 minutes.

17:18

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be happy to let the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) intervene for three minutes if she feels that she has been robbed.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady’s thoughtful speech. She is right to say that there is a difference in analysis, but none the less, she brings her experience to bear and it was a pleasure to hear it. However, after listening to her speech and many of the other contributions that we have heard, I also felt that there was a bit missing. She says that she has spoken to her chief constable and she is in no doubt that there will be fewer police stations, but with the cuts that we are talking about, the reality is that we will have fewer police officers. Some 80% of the police budget goes on people. We will not save that money simply by shutting a few buildings down. When she says that an excellent chief constable will look at the current situation and create a better service with less money, she is indulging in a myth. It is really unfair to the people in our communities, who rely on the Government and the police to keep them safe, to continue to allow them to believe that the police will be able continually to achieve more with less.

When the hon. Lady says that Labour would have had to face the same choices, she is not quite telling the truth, because the Conservatives have chosen to double the speed with which the deficit is paid off. Now that they have made that decision, we will have extra cuts. The shadow Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that there would have been cuts; he listed some of them for the second time, for the benefit of the Home Secretary, who had missed them the first time round. He was quite specific about them.

We also put in our manifesto that front-line policing would be protected, and that is key. A Government’s first duty must be to do all that they can to keep their citizens safe, and that is a duty that Labour understood well. It was demonstrated by the 17,000 extra police officers—compared with 1997—who are now patrolling Britain’s streets, 350 or so of them in Derbyshire, and by the 16,000 police community support officers introduced by Labour. The PCSOs have moved from being scorned by the press to being greatly valued by the public, who can see the contribution that they are making. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice admitted yesterday, the Labour Government were the first in history to preside over a consistent reduction in crime.

In addition to fighting serious crime and tackling the new threats of more complicated terrorist networks, more sophisticated paedophile rings and increasingly complex international drug and crime cartels, the Labour Government also gave the police far more significant powers to reduce antisocial behaviour than ever before. It was interesting to hear the Home Secretary claim that one of the problems was that the police had too many different powers. She implied that they were like joiners with too many tools, standing by a wall unsure which hammer to use, and that the extra powers at their disposal were somehow slowing them down and preventing them from getting on with policing. That was a rather strange thing to say.

The antisocial behaviour powers gave the police the ability to deal in a different and more effective way with the low-level antisocial element that exists in every constituency in the country. The Home Secretary showed us a window into her mind earlier, when she said that there was an increased perception of antisocial behaviour in poorer communities. Was she suggesting that, in regard to antisocial behaviour, the only difference between a poor community and a wealthy one was that poor people felt as though they were suffering as a result of it, and that if the millionaires took the trouble to look out of their castles, they would see all the terrible things going on outside the castle walls? Her reference to the perception of antisocial behaviour was quite revealing about her mindset and her view of the job that she has come into.

Like me, the police I have spoken to were staggered by the Home Secretary’s decision to abandon the antisocial behaviour order powers. They say that those powers have done much to help them to work with community groups, with tenants and residents associations, and with local councils to clean up the streets. It seems incredible that the Government should choose to strip the police of a power that is clearly working, at a time when all parties are concerned about reoffending rates. About 65% of recipients of an ASBO did not reoffend, and 93% desisted after their third one.

We have also heard a lot of talk about the effect on communities of antisocial behaviour orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke of the situation in his community. Chesterfield has a different environment, but our antisocial behaviour problems also lead on to low-level crime and, if those problems are not tackled at an early age, people can go on to become serial offenders who will be found guilty of much more serious crimes. I know that that is the experience of Members on both sides of the House. People have been driven out of their homes by vandalism to their car, for example. Every morning, when they come out to go to work, they do not know whether their tyres will have been let down or their wing mirrors smashed, or whether a big scratch will have appeared on the bonnet. Those might be considered lower-level crimes, but if they are not dealt with, the perpetrators will decide that they are above the law and one thing will lead to another and their crimes will become more and more serious.

We need real honesty in this debate about what we expect from the police. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made the important point that we now have an opportunity to reconsider the role of the police and decide what we want them to do. With the level of the cuts that are coming, the role we expect of the police is going to change drastically. There is no point anyone pretending otherwise.

The Home Secretary said that she wants to strip all the targets away so that the police have just one basic target—to cut crime. That fails to acknowledge the many different aspects of police work where no crime has been committed. If we see a man on a bridge who looks as if he is going to throw himself down on to the motorway, we are going to call the police—but no crime has been committed; it is just a man stood on a bridge. I would like to think that the police of the future would still turn up at such an incident. If not, we would be living in a very strange world.

When I was out with the police, they explained to me another problem they have with the mental health wing of a local hospital. There is a secure unit there and patients from it are sometimes given a pass to go out. The pass might be for three, four or 24 hours. At 23 hours and 59 minutes, there is no problem, but at 24 hours and a minute, the police are called out to find a missing person. Again, no crime has been committed, but the police are called.

We need to be sensible in this debate about what to expect from the police. I would certainly like to think that all Labour Members would join me in assisting the Police Minister in fighting his corner to get recognition for the message he wants to send out about what we want the police to do. Road traffic accidents provide another example. A huge amount of police time is taken up attending them, but no crime has been committed in most cases. If the responsibility of the police is only to stop crime, they might stop going out to road traffic accidents. Again, this shows the simplicity of the message; it might be attractive to the readers of tabloid newspapers, but it does not reflect the complexity or reality of what the police do. I am not advocating that the police should not turn up to road traffic accidents or should not turn up when a man is about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. What I am saying is that if we take the Home Secretary at her word, we need to think about the sort of service that we will end up with.

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman, in making his point attractively, risks missing the point of the scenarios he has described. I can think of a number of crimes that might have been or could be committed in the circumstances he describes, particularly in the case of road traffic accidents—starting with dangerous driving, to name but one. Frankly, he is not making a good point; if he has any better ones, I would like to hear them.

[Toby Perkins]

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman could understand the basic point I am making—that the police do a hell of a lot of work that does not actually involve cutting crime. I simply gave a number of examples.

We also need to look at what some of the backroom people do in the police service. I would not pretend that if we spoke to 100 police officers, none of them would complain about bureaucracy. I have spoken to senior police officers and I know that they do complain about it. Equally, however, I have not met a single police officer who believes that 25% cuts to the budget can be made by cutting the forms. That is not realistic. Much bureaucracy falls outside the Home Office remit and, as some of my hon. Friends said earlier, much of police bureaucracy arises from the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS requires such high evidential standards before it will take cases to court that the police have to provide a tremendous amount of evidence to back the service up. A lot of it takes up time. If we are going to remove such bureaucracy, we will have to accept that the police are likely to achieve fewer prosecutions. The CPS might have to take more cases to court, but that might increase the justice budget, so we would be saving on the one hand and losing out on the other.

My hon. Friends have also referred to other back- office functions—the massive amount of work done on counter-terrorism, for example, or on breaking international drug rings and international crime syndicates. The police also have people whose work is dedicated to the reduction of domestic violence. What often happens there is that the police put in a great deal of work to get the evidence together to achieve a prosecution, only to find that the victim of the violence has subsequently patched up the relationship and decided not to prosecute. The police have specialist teams dealing with child sex abuse. Such people may not be considered to be front-line police officers, but I should like to think that in any civilised society they would continue to work in the police force, and I believe that the narrowness of the new police target will be counterproductive. Far from being a Whitehall diktat, the policing pledge was put together by senior police officers who wanted to specify the standards of policing that people could expect wherever they lived.

I referred earlier to Liberal Democrats’ contribution to the policing policies pursued by the present Government. People ask what the Liberal Democrats are doing, but in this context their influence is clear, whether it involves their wish to get rid of ASBOs, their opposition to the DNA database—without which, as we have heard, 26 more murderers would be out on the streets—or their justice proposals, which mean that yobbos and criminals would not go to prison, but would be out on the streets as well. It is hardly surprising that someone who was on the run decided that it was well worth supporting the Liberal Democrat party financially: he may have felt that there was some benefit in doing so.

I wonder what happened to the Conservative party. I suspect that Lord Tebbit is turning in his crypt at the current Tory policies. The Tories seem not to understand, as he did, how poorer communities and people in deprived areas have been badly affected by crime. The Government are showing a lack of honesty about what will be faced by people on the streets if cuts of this magnitude are made, and a lack of awareness of what it is like to live in a deprived community that is under pressure from criminals. They do not seem to understand what it is like for people to wake up not knowing whether their properties will be left alone that day, or to go on holiday not knowing whether their properties will be broken into.

The current lack of vision about the best way in which to spend police resources leaves our police force, our communities and the value of a law-abiding, decent society dangerously exposed. I urge the Government to think again before pulling the rug from under the feet of our police.

17:32

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) on what was, as always, a sometimes political but nevertheless thoughtful contribution.

The debate has focused on a number of issues, notably accountability and cuts, but I want to talk about the situation in my constituency. I want to talk about what has gone wrong, the cost of crime and some of the solutions. I accept that great strides have been made in fighting antisocial behaviour, and that major reforms and successes have been achieved in Harlow. Recent operations have succeeded in targeting the few prolific offenders who cause the majority of the problems. Nevertheless, the town still suffers from the highest violent crime rate in Essex and from a high rate of burglaries and car thefts, and in terms of crime and disorder, some of its estates suffer from the worst 10% of deprivation in the British Isles. We also have serious problems in specific areas such as the town centre.

Although crime in those areas is not always reported to the police, I find—like other Members—that local residents often contact me about it, and mention it to me frequently in surgeries. That is why I consider this debate to be so important. We have some very effective police officers in Harlow and some good leadership in Essex, but I believe that in the wider United Kingdom there has been a breach of trust between the police and the public. The umbilical cord has been cut. Raymond Chandler, the American novelist, said:

“Crime isn't a disease, it’s a symptom.”

It has already been said that Tony Blair promised to be tough on the causes of crime, but the last Government approached prevention in a chaotic way. For example, sadly, they rewarded family breakdown by penalising couples in the welfare system, and they also failed to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.

We see this elsewhere, too. There has been much comment in the debate about closed circuit television. I am in favour of it when it cuts crime, but the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), came with me a few years ago to visit a company in Harlow called Rotatest which trains people in how to use CCTV. It has shown, through using Home Office studies, that about 80 or 90% of CCTV in this country is not fit for purpose either because it does not comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 or it is not operated properly or the machinery is not working properly. In 2006 alone we spent about £250 million on CCTV that was not working in the way that it should.

Only a couple of years ago, the deputy chief inspector of the Met, Mick Neville, said the system was an “utter fiasco”, with only 3% of London’s street robberies being solved using security cameras. Although Britain now has more cameras than any other European country, he said that “no thought” had gone into how to use them. We must have CCTV, of course, but I would like us to prevent more crime so that we need fewer CCTVs. It is not that we do not want CCTV; rather, we want to prevent crime so it is not needed in the first place.

Another problem is the micro-managed target culture of the previous Government and the bureaucracy, in part driven by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) when he was head of Tony Blair’s policy unit. The Opposition talk about cuts, but three years ago when they were in government they established a National Crime Reduction Board and then gave it no budget. They talk about cuts, but for all their spending they left England and Wales with double the crime rate of the European average. The Home Secretary said earlier that there were about 900,000 violent offences in 2009. The House of Commons Library has shown that that rose from 618,417 such offences in 1998, so there has been a huge rise in violent crime.

The Government’s reforms are urgently needed for Harlow, because there is not just the social cost of families blighted by crime, but there is also the huge cash cost, which is hurting the recovery. Labour Members have talked about cuts and expenditure, but they must accept that their policies led to crime now costing more than £3,000 for every family in the UK each year. Given that there are about 40,000 family households in my constituency, the cost to Harlow could be in the order of £120 million a year.

During the election campaign, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice visited with me a newsagent in Nazeing village that had been robbed three times in three weeks. This shop was just one of many whose profits were suffering because of crime. When we legally oblige police constables to spend 50% of their time on paperwork, we deny people the power to shape local policing and this is the sad result.

What are the answers? First, I would like to congratulate chief superintendent Mr Simon Williams and chief constable Mr Jim Barker-McCardle, as despite the challenging economic situation they have no plans to cut the number of front-line police officers in Harlow and intend to keep the police station in Harlow open for 24 hours a day. They are demonstrating that a smarter public sector can deliver more for less, even when it spends 80% of its budget on people. Earlier this year, before we entered government, Essex police had to cut £2.5 million from its budget, and it did so without any effect on front-line services.

We must also restore the trust between the wider public and the police, and the umbilical cord between them. That is why I am a passionate advocate of the Government’s policies to reconnect the police with the communities that they serve, which include having the direct election of a police commissioner. I cannot understand the opposition of Labour Members to making the police more accountable to the communities that they serve. We also propose reducing police paperwork and bureaucracy, so that constables can spend more time on the streets; introducing regular beat meetings, so that residents can hold the local police to account; and publishing more detailed local crime statistics.

We also propose to have more specials, and it is tragic that their number has declined by 6,000 since 1997. I completely disagree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about specials. There is scope for greater community involvement in policing. For example, Essex has one of the largest forces of specials in England. In early-day motion 520, I welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice that there is a “huge untapped potential” for recruiting more specials, and I suggested transforming them into a Territorial Army-type force. That would enable specials to cover more policing duties and would offer excellent value for money. Specials are also a genuinely local force and a valuable source of community intelligence.

I am not asking for extra money, but rather for the Government to refocus their resources to incentivise special constables, so that they can work more hours and develop professionally. Following many tragic fatalities on the railways near Harlow, I have called, including in my early-day motion 598, for a similar volunteer force of special rail guards to be established to improve safety on train platforms. In a time of scarce resources, special constables offer a big society answer to the crime problems we face, not only in Harlow, but across the country. I am talking about having fully trained constables with real powers who give a few hours a week to their local neighbourhood. We already have 600 in Essex, and let us hope we have more soon.

[Guy Opperman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is scope to widen the training and opportunities available to the existing special constables, so that they can carry out alternative tasks on a more big society basis?

[Robert Halfon]

Yes, entirely, and I would like community support officers to have the chance to become specials.

To sum up, our crime policy must move away from that of the previous Government, which was about bureaucracy and the big state.

[Karl Turner]

I might be wrong, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that police offers go from being paid to being unpaid. Is that the case?

[Robert Halfon]

I am saying completely the opposite. I am saying that for the special constables we should create a model similar to that of the Territorial Army. We should have a special constable force and its officers would be paid for the hours that they do, in the same way as TA people are paid.

In summary, I think that we want to move away from the big state and bureaucratic policies on crime to an approach based on accountability and community. That is why I oppose the Opposition’s motion.

17:44

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am in favour of volunteers, but not as a substitute for the real thing—that is the danger of the position taken by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). One of the lessons that Labour learned from the Conservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s was the importance of the law and order agenda. That had a profound impact on the Labour party, and the tragedy is that the coalition has forgotten that lesson. This Administration seem to have the wrong priorities.

I would have liked to have been party to the coalition talks and to have discovered how no priority was given to basic safety and security when they sat down to plan this great document. How did the Administration arrive at the conclusion, based on all their experience of their manifestos and the election outcome, that the electorate wanted to prioritise spending on international development and health above all else? I would like to see that put to a referendum or discussed in one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s question and answer sessions around the country. When I talk to voters, they tell me that the Administration have got that wrong.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman is very quick off the mark, but why not?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would cut the spending on health and international development and save money in other areas? He has not declared that before.

[Steve McCabe]

I am saying exactly that. I would not prioritise those two things above basic safety and security.

I was about to say that we have already seen a cut in this year’s core funding for the police. Most chief constables and police authorities anticipated that and they have taken some steps to prepare for it. That is what Programme Paragon in the west midlands is partly about; it is a reorganisation of the police to get better efficiency and use of personnel. Now we are faced with even more severe cuts on top—cuts to magistrates courts, to police, to probation, to prisons and to the entire criminal justice system. There is no area where the axe will not fall. It is inevitable that that scale of cuts will lead to a rise in crime and public alarm. That is a given.

One of the areas where this Administration are falling down and could learn lessons is that Labour listened to professionals and to the public about their concerns on crime. That is why crime was down when we left office—we listened and we took on board the concerns. The danger here is that the Administration are not listening and that we will all pay the price further down the line.

I want to make it clear that I accept the argument for cuts. I do not happen to revel in them—unlike some of the people on the Government Benches—but I accept the argument. There should be savings and cuts—I have no problem with that. I think it was the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) who said that he wanted to see some savings in standardising equipment purchase and in national procurement. So do I, and that is why they were in the White Paper that Labour produced. If I remember correctly, that White Paper also contained our pretty ambitious plan to cut police overtime, something that the coalition has taken on board.

I have no problem with trying to make such savings and I think, frankly, it is utterly dishonest of the people opposite to pretend that we are saying anything else. We can argue about the scale of cuts and about the impact on the economy, but to stand there and try to pretend that we are not saying that is downright dishonest.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with a Government seeking greater efficiency, but it is a question of numbers and scale. I happen to agree with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission that cuts in excess of 12% will affect the capacity to police our streets. It is as simple as that. Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that the scale of cuts being planned will mean a much smaller force in London as we prepare to police the Olympics. I am not sure that anyone has given sufficient consideration to what that might mean.

I personally think that we will see two effects from the Government’s actions. First, we will see a freeze on recruitment—that is already happening in the west midlands—and a freeze in promotion. Ultimately, that will drain morale and lead to a stunted, unbalanced and defensive police organisation. We will also see the reverse of civilianisation—the very opposite of what the Home Secretary claims that she wants.

Civilians, who are obviously easier to sack than police officers, are going to be forced out, and police officers will then have to be redeployed to take on some of those civilian tasks. Rather than seeing crime fighters, we are going to see trained police officers back on front desks acting as receptionists. They will be answering phone calls about minor matters and carrying out back-office admin tasks. They will not be out on the streets but be back in the offices reverting to doing simple typing tasks. Reverse civilianisation will be the effect of sacking civilians because they are easier to dispose of, and their work will still have to be done by police officers. That will be the consequence.

I am concerned that eventually chief constables will be driven, probably in despair, to use what is known as regulation A19 to sack officers who have completed 30 years of service. Perversely, that makes sense at force level because those people draw some of the highest salaries; it has an immediate impact on the budget because salaries are the largest part of the budget. However, the consequence is getting rid of some of our most experienced police officers. That means getting rid of the people who contribute most to the job while the public still have to pick up the tab for their pensions and any pay-off arrangements that were made in persuading them to go. That approach makes no sense in the long run and is a classic short-term economy with long-term ramifications. I understand that the West Midlands police force, which is admittedly the second-largest force in the country, is looking at losing about 2,000 police jobs as a result of what is planned. To give an idea of scale, about 14,000 people are employed by the force.

It is easy to trade statistics in debates such as this, and we have heard one or two already, but I want to draw attention to one that has caught my eye. Cardiff university recently demonstrated that there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances at accident and emergency departments in 2010 compared with 2001, which represents a fall of 15%. We should pay attention to that independent research, because it tells a story about violent crime and it rather contradicts some of the myths that we have heard recently. I commend it to the Government and I hope that they will be willing to follow it up. There is also the British crime survey, which is not so popular with the Government, certainly not since they were rebuked by Sir Michael Scholar for misusing statistics. I often wonder how long it will be before we hear a statement that the UK Statistics Authority is to be abolished in the interests of Government efficiency.

As I have said, one reason for Labour’s successes in law and order was that we paid attention to the concerns voiced to us by the public and professionals. That is the real story behind why we introduced antisocial behaviour orders. We recognised the need for a measure that would address the types of antisocial behaviour that the police and the public were telling us they were powerless to deal with. ASBOs are not perfect, but they are better than nothing. What we need is a measure that allows people who are constantly on the receiving end of antisocial behaviour and are not being helped by their police or local authorities to go directly to court and ask for something to be done. That would be much more effective.

The bureaucracy that the Home Secretary worries about is not inherent in ASBOs. The problem is the bureaucracy and dilatory behaviour of councils such as the Lib Dem-Tory coalition authority in Birmingham. That is why it takes so long to deal with antisocial behaviour. It would be much better if the Government put some energy into tackling that bottleneck, rather than taking away one of the tools that people generally feel is making a difference. Deciding to abolish ASBOs without a sensible alternative is like turning one’s back when people are suffering the worst kind of torment. It suggests that the coalition is already out of touch. I am sure that if Ministers had spoken to people about this, they would not be setting out such a proposal.

It is good that we use technology to tackle miscarriages of justice and to catch people who thought that they had got away with it. I worry that the Government’s position on DNA is pseudo civil liberties posturing and doubt that it is reasonable or rational. I am not against a review of CCTV, and given some of the points made about Project Champion in Birmingham, there might be a good argument for a review. However, if the Government seriously think that ANPR and CCTV are not needed in the fight against crime, they are totally and utterly wrong. On CCTV, we should, if anything, be worrying about how we will find the resources for the next generation of cameras. Addressing that point in conjunction with regulation would be much more useful than simply going along with the wheeze that we can get by without them.

The Government talk a great deal about freedom, but I detect a certain degree of intolerance and authoritarianism behind the mask. The Audit Commission might cause a problem—abolish it; the Association of Chief Police Officers might be awkward—emasculate it; police authorities might not play ball—scrap them. The Government talk about localism and the big society but move in the opposite direction. They are destroying the links between ordinary people and the criminal justice system, and their obsession with cuts that go beyond economic sense will destroy neighbourhood policing.

I spoke at a charity event in Worcester the other week along with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I invite hon. Members to ask her privately—not in the Chamber—what a largely Tory audience thought about elected police commissioners. I will tell hon. Members why we will have such a short consultation on that: because the Government know that the proposal does not make sense. It is a fix, just like the Deputy Prime Minister’s boundary review, that will not work.

The Government have a lot to learn about what people really want from policing. Unfortunately, they plan to learn on the job using the British public as their laboratory.

17:58

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House. I hope that I shall not use my full allocation of time because I know that several hon. Members still wish to play their part in this wide-ranging debate. The shadow Secretary of State went through the gamut of policy in general, talking about not only policing but wider issues of criminal justice, and I shall be as faithful as possible to the parameters that he set in his opening speech.

The preceding speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was revealing in the sense that he said that the Labour party learned a lot about what people wanted during the ‘80s and ‘90s. However, it seems to me that Labour learned a lot about what tabloid headlines demanded rather than about what was happening on the ground. The Labour Government’s increasing distance from the reality of people’s lives was reflected by their culture of legislative incontinence and increasingly centralised control that must have made police officers—from chief constables down to those at ground level—feel that at times they were being made to revolve on the spot. The consequences of the lack of clarity—the ever-changing parameters set for the police—were manifold. I shall concentrate on several that were worrying.

The first casualty of the previous Government’s obsession with centralism and targets was trust in the ability of constables and more senior police officers to take decisions—decisions on the priorities that they wanted to set in their localities, on the appropriate responses to complaints of crime, and on whether a suspect should be charged. One of the most fundamental powers available to the police was rudely taken away from them, and I am delighted that the new Government will restore in part that discretion to the police. I take this opportunity to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in urging the Government to go further and to restore the power of charging completely to police officers. Let me tell the House why I believe that.

In recent years, there has been an increasing obsession with the need for the investigating authority to get everything precisely in order before the decision to charge. That fad—that obsession—has led to debates in this House, before the election and since, and in the media about detention periods prior to charge. We have hotly debated the subject, here and elsewhere, with wildly and dramatically conflicting views expressed about civil liberties. I am left wondering why we have ended up in that position. Why is there that obsession with the need to delay everything before the decision to charge?

Time and again, when police officers made the early decision to charge, it provided the key incentive to the investigating authority to get on with the job of investigating the case thoroughly, preparing it for trial and making sure that victims and witnesses were not kept waiting. Then, the decision to charge was removed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The advice before charge system involves an often experienced police officer having to telephone a CPS lawyer, probably located some distance from the police station, and reinvent the wheel by explaining everything to that lawyer, only to be told that the lawyer was not seized of all the necessary information and the key decision to charge would have to be put off. That has led to real frustration, not only on the part of police officers, but also, and crucially, on the part of witnesses who, having made their statements, have been asked to wait for months—sometimes for more than a year—before giving evidence. What effect does that have, first, on the ability of the witness to remember events clearly and, secondly, their enthusiasm to come to court? Those are fundamental problems that I saw at first hand, time and again, during my years in practice in the Crown court.

Another consequence was the culture of clear-ups—the driver whereby the police had to resolve unsolved crimes. It did not seem to matter what the crime was; what was important was getting that clear-up. The outcome was essential. It did not matter if the crime was serious; as long as the box was ticked and it was moved off the system, everything was okay. That is not a reflection of public opinion or public confidence, or of a Government who are learning the lessons and listening to people. It is a complete negation of what the public interest is and what the public really want.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

If that point is juxtaposed with the other part of the Government’s plan to have democratically elected leaders of local police authorities, if a candidate stood on a manifesto of clear-ups and won, would such a policy be allowed?

[Mr Buckland]

Obviously, there will be a distinction between police commissioners getting involved in day-to-day operational duties and their other role, but I think it will be perfectly in order for candidates to debate that question and how we deal with the clear-up issue. That is a matter of legitimate public concern and debate, so I do not see any problem with dealing with that. It would be a different matter if on a day-to-day basis, a particular case were in some way influenced by a commissioner. In terms of the remit of that elected official, that would be to stray into the wrong territory.

There was a rather absurd reversal of roles, whereby senior Ministers—a succession of Labour Home Secretaries—wanted to outdo each other in order to sound tough on crime. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) is not in his place, but he described his era as a golden age: a year of broad sunlit uplands, peace and tranquillity, as he stood with a shining sword in hand, on his way to the new Jerusalem. Juxtaposed with that, senior police officers increasingly sounded like politicians and had to defend the indefensible. Their language became more and more obscure, and they did not sound like police officers anymore or like the representatives of a police force—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made and I strongly support. Something was rotten in our state, and, if this Government had not acted quickly to recognise that, something would continue to be wrong.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Buckland]

I shall not give way at this point, because I need to develop this point. I am delighted that in place of that rotten rhetoric, we have a sense of honesty and reality when it comes to addressing what is going on at the coal face of the criminal justice system.

A major part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was on antisocial behaviour, but by assuming that there will be a wholesale abolition of the structure, an assumption that other Opposition Members repeated, an Aunt Sally has been set up. When the Home Secretary in her paper described the process of moving beyond ASBOs, she meant development and improvement, rather than wholesale abolition.

I shall propose a few sensible simplifications of the system. The criminal ASBO, or CRASBO, is a waste of time and should be removed. At the end of a Crown court trial, when a defendant has been convicted, punished and has received his sentence, an application is made, almost as an afterthought, for a criminal antisocial behaviour order, which is often poorly drafted, ill thought-out, unworkable and unenforceable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I shall not give way at this point, because I have only four minutes left, and the couple of points that I want to make are rather detailed.

When it comes to the rest of the ASBO structure, we have a system of “Thou shalt not”, a prohibitory system telling the subjects of those orders what not to do. There is a case for allowing the greater use of mandatory orders. They encourage positive behaviour and particular steps that an individual should take to improve their behaviour, rather like what was done with antisocial behaviour injunctions under the Housing Act 1996, the year before Labour entered government, which was amended in later years. I met representatives of my local authority in Swindon during the recess to discuss those issues, and I am grateful to them for their constructive submissions in this respect. The authority has a very proactive antisocial behaviour team, and it will make submissions to the review in due course.

I turn to my other concern, which I share with the local authority. The Government have rightly said that the rather lengthy and cumbersome process of obtaining ASBOs in court must be streamlined. There has been a discussion about whether the forum for the imposition of ASBOs should move wholesale to the county court, but I agree with my local authority that we should urge caution. I would suggest that the magistrates court is a quicker, more effective and better forum for the resolution of a lot of antisocial behaviour orders. If new, streamlined procedural rules need to be developed, then that can be done.

My fundamental point is that we need to move away from what has been a tendency by authorities to reclassify crime as antisocial behaviour. The whole thrust of the legislation passed by the previous Government was what one might call the Heineken approach—to refresh the parts of our social problems that the criminal law could not reach. I am afraid that the principle has been undermined to a worrying degree as a result of the target culture and the need to avoid “criming”—that is a dreadful word, but I have heard it used many times; I do not accept that it exists in the English language—particular complaints, driving them down the antisocial behaviour route.

That is not the approach we should adopt. We should use ASBOs as a bolt-on to the existing criminal justice system. They should be used judiciously and carefully—not with a scattergun approach—to try to deal with a range of wholly unsuitable scenarios. Local authorities such as mine in Swindon use many stages before they resort to ASBOs. I encourage that approach across the country, while recognising that in each different locality local bodies should be free to make decisions based on their own priorities.

I did not recognise in any way the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about centralist authoritarianism as regards the new Government’s approach to dealing with crime. I oppose the motion and commend the Government’s approach.

18:12

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I was not going to participate in this debate, but I was struck by the absence of discussion of a particularly important issue that is of the utmost concern to my constituents: the problem of serious youth violence, gun and knife crime, and the gang culture that still exists in some of our major cities.

During the election, I spoke to many mums and dads who told me that while they recognised that serious gang members had been taken off the streets, they were still very fearful for the safety of their sons and daughters. My concern about the Government’s proposals to reduce police numbers and the amount of resources that are available to our police forces across the country is that our police will not have the same ability to tackle this very important and serious problem in many of our communities.

About three days ago, I received an e-mail from one of my constituents, and I thought that I would share it with Members of the House. He said:

“The other day my son was threatened at knife point and had his phone taken on the very street where we live. To my absolute horror the police knew all of the gang member’s names, their street names and they knew they all carry knives and guns.”

My constituent went on to tell me that he had discovered on YouTube links to this particular gang—videos with hours of footage that, in effect, act as recruitment videos for the gangs. One video had 15,925 viewings, and I was appalled by some of the imagery contained in it.

I take this opportunity to ask the Government to set out in more detail what initiatives and plans they have to tackle this very important issue in our constituencies. I appreciate that it is not all about the police, and that organisations that can provide positive, accessible role models to our young people are critically important. It would be remiss of me, as the Member of Parliament for Lewisham East, not to bring this incredibly important issue to the attention of the House and to ask Ministers present here today to provide some assurances about what their Government will be doing to tackle this problem.

Those were the only points that I wanted to make. I had not planned to make an intervention in the debate, but as the issue had not cropped up, I thought it was very important to put it on the record, and I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to do so.

18:15

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

At the heart of this debate is a single issue: what would we all cut? How would we all approach the difficult dilemmas that we face? Police budgets are, by definition, an emotive subject, as anyone who has sat in the Chamber this afternoon can appreciate. Every one of us wants to have the maximum possible number of police. However, health, education, defence, justice and all the other matters that we have to address are also emotive. To look at the police budget on its own without considering other issues is naive and does not approach the full problem.

The simple question is this: is anyone above budgetary cuts? I do not believe that we are, or that the police are. All the police officers whom I speak to—I have done nine murder trials and spent the best part of 20 years working with officers—accept that things have to change. We do not have to explain that in terms of class or Thatcherism. Those things do not apply, because it is simply about maths. As we all explained up and down the country, if someone spends £400 but earns only £325, the maths simply does not add up. I see no problem in approaching that problem by saying, “This must change.”

[Toby Perkins]

Seeing as the hon. Gentleman has set up his contribution based on the economy, he might choose to reflect on the fact that there is a fundamental difference between our parties. The Labour Government proposed to reduce the deficit, but not by nearly as much as the new Conservative Government. Because they are increasing the pace at which we are repaying the deficit, they will have to cut more and there will be fewer police on the beat and more crime. That is a fundamental difference in approach.

[Guy Opperman]

I disagree totally, because we are tackling the deficit earlier and will not have the problems that we would have had if Labour had kept delaying the cuts and spending as though there were no tomorrow. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that 6 May was the tomorrow, and his party lost it.

In Hexham, the police have already taken a small budgetary cut. I walked the beat with them barely three weeks ago. They are doing an amazing job of looking after their area and are perfectly able to cope with the difficulties that they have had thus far. Who knows where the future will ultimately lie? However, they understand and appreciate the problems and they know that there are ways forward. As the assistant to Barack Obama put it, “We should not waste a crisis.” It is often in the difficult times that we can re-evaluate who we are, assess what we are doing and review what we are going to spend our money on in future.

I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) in his excellent speech. The latter spoke with great eloquence, having been a police officer himself until nine years ago. He indicated, for example, that higher police numbers do not necessarily equal less crime. The example of Belgium is well known. There are very significant numbers of police—the highest numbers in Europe—yet the crime level is massively increased.

I hope that the Government will consider the fact that in a constituency such as mine, which is 1,150 square miles, the vital issue of rural crime has been treated very differently from other crime over the past 13 years, and I hope that things will improve. That point encompasses why I oppose the closure of the magistrates court in my constituency. The proposal is that we will have no magistrates court in our 1,150 square miles. I do not believe that that is the right way forward, hence my strong opposition to such a measure.

My final point is this. I ask myself why the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the shadow Home Secretary, gave the speech that he gave today—it has been mentioned this afternoon on several occasions. Some described it as an application to the post-election shadow Cabinet, but I am not sure that it was. I take the view that he expressed amazing reverence for Lord Michael Howard. He seemed to disregard all Home Secretaries between Lord Howard and himself, when we reached, as others described it, the delightful sunlit upland of “the year of Johnson”, as he called it. That was very eloquent. According to him, the world went from the “prison works” policy of Michael Howard to him, but he disregarded the ASBO age of John Reid as Home Secretary and the CRASBO—criminal antisocial behaviour order—age of Charles Clarke, and indicated that we simply arrived in the year of Johnson when everything was sunlit and perfect.

I thought that the Howard-Johnson alignment had a future, but then I remembered that that was the name of a rather dodgy hotel chain in America that provides a kind of cut-price service. Lord knows where we could go with that. I support the Government, and I urge people to reconsider their approach. I accept that there are contrary arguments—police budgets are always emotive—but the Johnson alignment is not the right way.

18:21

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The ability—indeed, the right—of people to live in security is the most fundamental achievement of society, and Government Members who too often give the impression that public is bad and private is good should remember that only the public sector can deliver a police force in which the public have confidence.

Like many hon. Members, I do not have an intimate knowledge of the police, which is why I was pleased to have the opportunity to go on patrol in Newcastle with Northumbria police a few days ago. I was taken to Newcastle’s Bigg Market by a local police sergeant and a police community support officer. For those who are unfamiliar with Newcastle, all human life is in the Bigg Market, from those who beg and sing for their supper, to the better-heeled student visitors and tourists, and all those for whom alcohol and entertainment form part of a good evening out. I was struck by the difference between the policing that I experienced then and the policing that I experienced during the Thatcher years.

Police Community Support Officer James Maguire and Sergeant Michelle Jahangiri had a deep understanding of the needs of the Newcastle community and of Newcastle’s priorities. They told me how neighbourhood meetings, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) described so eloquently, enabled them to understand better the community’s priorities. I also saw for myself how the balance between PCSOs, who liaise directly with the community, and other police officers, means that the latter have more time to address the more pressing policing issues. That balance is important to successful policing.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, spoke of wanting a police force, not a service. I believe very strongly that the people of this country want both. Policing is a service. Force alone will not resolve the kind of policing issues that we face today, when it is the respect and trust of the community that is so important. The hon. Lady spoke of how children require the knowledge of supervision, but those who elected me are not children. They require a police force, but they also require a partner in the policing of their streets. That is why the changes that Labour and the investment it made in policing as part of a community service have been so important in Newcastle and across the country.

The reduction in crime under Labour is clearly related to improved and increased policing, but it is also related to our actions elsewhere in Government—in the economy and in social services. As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, everything was not perfect. There was still much to do, especially in the area of mental health care. The events in Newcastle before the summer showed how closely related effective mental health care provision is to the demands on our police. But the plans of the coalition Government will increase enormously the burdens on the police while cutting the resources that they have available.

Cutting the area-based grant, for example, will mean that in Newcastle we may lose our taxi wardens, who have been so successful in reducing violence at taxi ranks. Cutting the future jobs fund will inevitably lead to more unemployment, which will in itself increase the burden on the police, as well as leading to increased crime. Abolishing antisocial behaviour orders will not only take away from the police an important tool that they can use, but will take away a form of reassurance from our communities, in some of the most deprived areas of our cities.

More generally, risking a double-dip recession, which will inevitably lead to higher unemployment, will present our police with huge new challenges. At a time when the police will face an increased burden, it is recklessness taken to extremes to propose cuts of between 25% and 40%. It is understandable, perhaps, that the Liberal Democrats should be liberal with our security and fail to consider the consequences of a free-for-all on our streets. But the British public would expect that the Conservatives would do all that they could to conserve crime-free streets. This betrayal of our security will not be accepted. For that reason, I support the Opposition motion.

18:28

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I declare an interest in that I spent this morning, as a member of the Kent police authority, working with the chief constable on getting cracking on finding these savings. He has bravely set out his plans to find a 20% reduction, which is his assumption, and he is working towards that target. There is one element of the motion that I welcome, and that is the recognition from Labour Members that it may be possible to reduce spending on the police by up to 12% without affecting the front line. However, that raises the question why they did not do that.

In Kent, we have been working to do that, and have the second-lowest precept in the country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). We are collaborating with Essex: we have a single command for all serious and organised crime, and we have a single IT system and single purchasing. Unlike a lot of areas of the country and the regional talking shops introduced by the last Government, we work to find those savings. There are a lot more savings to be found in bureaucracy as well, for example, through not always having to go to the Crown Prosecution Service to charge, and working with the CPS, the probation service and prisons, and perhaps trying to make them more responsive locally and get people working most efficiently.

The best thing we can do to help with the savings is introduce directly elected police commissioners, who could deliver efficiency and give the public the necessary savings. Every year, the police authority in my area receives perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 pages. The formality of that process should be replaced with a single individual working with the police efficiently to deliver what the public want. That is how to deliver better policing and to find these savings. Opposition Members failed to do that, and did not deliver in government. This Government will deliver.

18:31

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate, and the level of interest in crime and policing provision has been demonstrated by the fact that 22 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken. That is a significant number of people who have expressed an interest in the concerns before us.

I would like to start be reiterating the Opposition’s central charge against the Government’s proposals to date. The record of the previous Labour Government was one of achievement and one of which Labour Members can be proud. It drove forward changes that I am proud of today and introduced cultural changes to the police service, but it will be put at risk by the Government’s actions in the next few weeks and months. In particular, that record will be put at risk—this is the major charge in the motion—by the proposals to cut the resources of the police service. That proposal, which was actually encouraged by the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—they did not fight the Treasury—will mean that we will face potential major reductions of 20 to 25% in the police service budget. That will create major difficulties in the future—[Interruption.] The Minister says, “How do you know that?” I know it because it was stated in the pre-Budget report and indicated to police forces across England and Wales. I hope that that does not happen, but I expect it to do so.

I am talking not just about funding issues, but about the policy choices that the Home Secretary and the Minister are making over CCTV, DNA, domestic violence protection orders, control orders, the direct election of police officials and penal policy. That will all put us on a collision course—it has the potential to drive crime up and to lose us the record that we have had to date. I am proud of what the Labour Government did. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) all praised the work of the previous Government.

We should remind ourselves of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said. The crime survey has shown that crime has fallen 43% since 1997, confidence in policing is up, violent crime fell by 42% in those 13 years, overall personal crime fell 41%, household crime fell 44%, vehicle crime fell, convictions rose, there are more people in prison and we have longer sentences. As a result of that, crime is down by 43% overall, as I said. I am not saying it was perfect, because it was not. If an individual is subject to a crime, to them it is 100% crime. [Interruption.] I am being heckled about reoffending rates, but those actually fell by 20% under the Labour Government. The number of new entrants into the criminal system also fell under the Labour Government, because we made the required investment in many areas.

Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we have record numbers of police officers—143,734 police officers and 16,000 police community support offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned that they value the fact that PCSOs provide that service on the streets, giving reassurance. Those officers were not there, in any shape or form before the previous Labour Government came to power. There are also 17,000 more police officers now than in 1997. That investment has made the difference in reducing crime. I simply put that on the record, because although what we did was not perfect, it shows that we made a difference for people in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom by reducing crime.

We did that not just because we put resources into policing and police community support officers, but because we also did what Tony Blair said we would do, which was try to tackle the causes of crime, as well as crime itself. The past three years have seen the youth crime action plan, putting money into prevention work across the country and supporting after-school activities, weekend initiatives and a range of measures to help tackle crime and the causes of crime; putting money into antisocial behaviour initiatives, with the thresholds that we set until March this year to try to encourage local councils to have minimum standards; and looking at issues such as family intervention projects and Sure Start. Indeed, the word “gobsmacked” came to mind when I heard a Conservative Member say how much they welcomed and enjoyed Sure Start. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—in a sedentary intervention, albeit a prescient one—said, “Aren’t the Conservative Government pledged to abolish Sure Start?” We will see in due course.

Tackling the causes of crime and putting resources into policing and police community support officers made a difference. Crime fell under the previous Labour Government. However, that is not to say that we would not have made savings had we been re-elected on 6 May. Indeed, let me point to the White Paper that I produced as Policing Minister in December last year, supported by my right hon. Friend the now shadow Home Secretary, to show that not only were we trying to take forward policing initiatives; we also recognised that we could, should and would have saved money by doing things more efficiently.

Those efficiencies included reducing the overtime bill by £70 million—the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made points about that—and developing national procurement standards for police officers’ uniforms, beat cars and air support, thereby saving resources in what our 43 forces do; standardising procurement of body armour; cutting stop-and-search paperwork; piloting the transfer of Crown prosecution powers to the police for lesser offences; and looking at encouraging voluntary mergers, with a £500 million fund that I put in place as Policing Minister for that purpose. Government Members raised the question of exposing and developing good practice. The Quest programme, which we supported, did just that; indeed, it extended it, including in Weaver Vale, Cheshire, Runcorn and Warrington. In total, savings of more than £1.3 billion by 2014 were identified by the then Labour Government.

Those savings would have been seen through by the Labour Government, but the choice that the Conservative Government are making is to go beyond that. They are doing what my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned, which is cutting public spending because they believe in cutting spending, not because they need to tackle the deficit now. That is the choice that the Conservative Government have made. Every right hon. and hon. Member on the Labour Benches went into the election with a commitment to maintain health, education, and policing and crime expenditure. We were elected on that basis—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary indicates that that is not correct, but that was in our manifesto, upon which we were elected. I confess that it did not reach the hearts of all parts of the country, but it secured us the mandate to argue today for that expenditure for the future.

What have we seen from the coalition Government? In July, we saw cuts of £125 million to a budget for this year that they agreed in February and which we proposed when we were on the Government Benches as Ministers. We are now seeing cuts of potentially 25 to 40% in the number of police officers, which, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East and for Salford and Eccles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, will damage the ability of police officers on the streets. I happen to contend that, funnily enough, investment in police officers and community support officers has meant that crime has fallen accordingly. The chief constables of Humberside, Gwent, Kent and Cambridgeshire have all predicted deep cuts that will have a profound impact on the crime-fighting abilities of their forces.

As if that were not enough, we find that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is starting to dismantle some of the policies that have made a real difference on the ground in our communities, including tackling antisocial behaviour through the use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am extremely surprised by that. I grew up in the 1980s, and I believed that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. That is what they told us, every week and every month. That is what they told us all the time. Now, antisocial behaviour orders have been shown to make a real difference on the ground in stopping antisocial behaviour, with 65% of recipients stopping offending when the ASBO is put in place, and 95% stopping after their third order has been issued. However, the Conservative coalition is going to dismantle that system.

The policing pledge, which sets minimum standards of service for the communities that we represent, is also going to be thrown out of the window by the Conservative coalition. The ability to use DNA to bring criminals to justice is also to be thrown out of the window, despite the fact that, in the debate on the Crime and Justice Bill before the election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported proposals under which people who had not been convicted of a crime—but who could potentially have been criminals—would have had their DNA stored. I look forward to a day that could be disastrous for the Government, if people are committing crimes when they could have been prevented from doing so. People could be killed, injured, raped or attacked, but individuals—[Interruption.] I say to the Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), that there are balances to be struck in this regard. An individual might have been caught by the police but not charged. His DNA might have been collected. In 90% of cases, according to our current research, such a person could potentially commit a crime in the future. I look forward to being able to say that we could have prevented some of those crimes from being committed.

The domestic violence protection orders, which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats did not oppose in the Bill in February, are now to be ditched by the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving me this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we have not ditched domestic violence protection orders. We have deferred their introduction to ensure that, if we take the decision to carry on with them, they will be the most effective way of dealing with the issues that we all agree need to be dealt with. They have not been ditched.

[Mr Hanson]

We must look forward to the fact that two pilot schemes are being held back when they could have been developed.

On the issue of CCTV, there is certainly a need for regulation, but individual Government Back Benchers have said—[Interruption.] Well, when we were in government, we were considering proposals for regulation. The fact is, however, that the present Government believe in reducing the number of CCTV cameras and in ensuring that they are not deployed to the extent that we believe they should be. Hon. Members have given their views on that as well.

At the same time, a massive reorganisation of the police service is now pending, which will result in police forces taking their eye off the ball when it comes to fighting crime. The introduction of directly elected commissioners will cost £50 million. Nothing has yet been said about their roles and responsibilities, about who will set the precept, about qualifications or about staffing. The Government are developing a whole range of issues that will ensure that the police focus on reorganisation and not on their core business of fighting crime in the community at large.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned control orders, the fight against terrorism and the Prevent budget. These are serious issues, but the Government are setting the needs of what they view as civil liberties against the need to protect the community at large. Again, I look forward to examining those issues in detail, so that we can hold the Government to account on terrorism, international crime, drug running and regional crime.

The Labour party would have maintained the resources for fighting crime and developing policing. We would have increased the efficiency of the police service and allowed the police to look outwards to the public they serve. We would have strengthened the police authorities and ensured that crime continued to fall, as it did during the 13 years of the Labour Government. I look forward to taking on the Government on these issues. We will expose their softness on crime while ourselves adopting the position of the party of law and order. We shall expose their failings over the weeks, months and years ahead.

18:45

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

Let us start with what is agreed on both sides of the House. We agree about the importance of tackling crime. Hon. Members of all parties have spoken about the importance of dealing with crime in their constituencies and of making their communities safe. We also agree about the importance of the police in tackling crime and the need to support them. We should all join in thanking the police for the work they do.

Beyond that, however, agreement ended, and we heard two kinds of speeches, reflecting the divide in today’s politics—the divide between this coalition Government and the Opposition who are stuck in the past. It is a divide between the realists and the reformers on this side and the deficit deniers and big spenders on the other side. Government Members understand the importance of, and the responsibility to deal with, the deficit. We understand the importance of organisations, whether they be in the private or the public sector, spending their resources wisely.

We heard good speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), reminding us that it is not just the number of police officers, but what they do, that matters. How available are they to the public? We should all be sobered by the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, issued just a few weeks ago, telling us that only 11% of the police—about a tenth—are visibly available to the public at any one time. We should ask ourselves the question why. Why is there not greater efficiency in our police service; can the money be spent more wisely? The report also said that higher spending forces are not necessarily better than other forces and it proposed savings by greater use of civilian staff—some forces are doing that; others are not. As the Chairman of the Select Committee recommended, we need better procurement; we also need more effective collaboration and more back-office savings.

[Hazel Blears]

The HMIC figure of 11% of officers being available on patrol has been much discussed today. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s target over the next 12 months? What does he think he can deliver when it comes to having more officers on patrol?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Lady has not understood the new world, has she? We want to move beyond targets. We do not believe that public services are improved by the targets of which she was so fond.

That issue was reflected in the second group of speeches, which called for more spending. Never mind that we spend £14 billion a year on the police—50% more over the lifetime of the last Government. These speeches—not least the right hon. Lady’s—called for more authoritarianism. Never mind about civil liberties: to hell with those, and who cares about the deficit? That was the substance of the shadow Home Secretary’s case.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I will not.

The shadow Home Secretary said that we should not cut, that we should not make any savings in respect of the police and that we should protect the police, but take no action to protect civil liberties or reform police accountability. That was his contention. Let us deal with those matters in turn.

In his winding-up speech, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said that the Opposition would have maintained resources for policing, while the Opposition motion says that the previous Government would have maintained core funding. Yet, on 20 July, on “The Daily Politics” in a debate with me, the shadow Home Secretary said that his Government would have cut by “£1 billion a year”—a cut of 12%. There was the admission that they would have cut spending. Now, however, they say that they would have maintained resources. They do not know what they would have done, but we know what they would have done.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

No.

Just a few weeks ago, we know that Labour Members voted against a reduction in police spending, which this Government had to make in order to deal with the deficit. That reduction was by 1.5%, but Labour Members voted against it.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

No.

How, then, can we take seriously the shadow Home Secretary’s contention that he would have cut by £1 billion? The truth is, as we know, that the Government who left office bequeathed to the country £44 billion-worth of unspecified spending cuts. Those were cuts that they were going to make. They would not say how, but we know that they were in the order of 20%.

[Alan Johnson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. It will give him a chance to get his breath back.

I have said this consistently, and I will say it again very slowly. We set out in the November White Paper, the pre-Budget report, the Budget and other public documents savings of £1.3 billion over the next four years. That is about 12% of the Home Office budget. The HMIC report, to which the Minister referred, said that with a lot of effort it was possible to save 12% without affecting front-line services. That is the argument.

[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.

The House having divided: Ayes 232, Noes 327.Division No. 57][6.59 pmAYESAbbott, Ms DianeAinsworth, rh Mr BobAlexander, rh Mr DouglasAlexander, HeidiAli, RushanaraAllen, Mr GrahamAnderson, Mr DavidAustin, IanBailey, Mr AdrianBain, Mr WilliamBalls, rh EdBanks, GordonBarron, rh Mr KevinBayley, HughBeckett, rh MargaretBegg, Miss AnneBell, Sir StuartBenn, rh HilaryBenton, Mr JoeBerger, LucianaBetts, Mr CliveBlackman-Woods, RobertaBlears, rh HazelBlenkinsop, TomBlomfield, PaulBlunkett, rh Mr DavidBrennan, KevinBrown, LynBrown, rh Mr NicholasBrown, Mr RussellBryant, ChrisBuck, Ms KarenBurden, RichardBurnham, rh AndyByrne, rh Mr LiamCairns, DavidCampbell, Mr AlanCampbell, Mr RonnieCaton, MartinClark, KatyClarke, rh Mr TomCoaker, VernonCoffey, AnnConnarty, MichaelCooper, RosieCooper, rh Yvette Corbyn, JeremyCrausby, Mr DavidCreagh, MaryCreasy, StellaCruddas, JonCryer, JohnCunningham, AlexCunningham, Mr JimCunningham, TonyCurran, MargaretDakin, NicDarling, rh Mr AlistairDavid, Mr WayneDavidson, Mr IanDavies, GeraintDe Piero, GloriaDobbin, JimDobson, rh FrankDocherty, ThomasDoran, Mr FrankDowd, JimDoyle, GemmaDromey, JackDugher, MichaelEagle, Ms AngelaEagle, MariaEfford, CliveEngel, NataschaEsterson, BillEvans, ChrisFarrelly, PaulField, rh Mr FrankFitzpatrick, JimFlello, RobertFlint, rh CarolineFlynn, PaulFovargue, YvonneFrancis, Dr HywelGapes, MikeGardiner, BarryGilmore, SheilaGlass, PatGlindon, Mrs MaryGodsiff, Mr RogerGoggins, rh PaulGoodman, HelenGreatrex, TomGreen, KateGreenwood, LilianGriffith, NiaHain, rh Mr PeterHamilton, Mr DavidHamilton, Mr FabianHanson, rh Mr DavidHarman, rh Ms HarrietHavard, Mr DaiHealey, rh JohnHendrick, MarkHepburn, Mr StephenHillier, MegHilling, JulieHodge, rh MargaretHodgson, Mrs SharonHoey, KateHood, Mr JimHopkins, KelvinHowarth, rh Mr GeorgeHunt, TristramIllsley, Mr EricIrranca-Davies, HuwJackson, GlendaJames, Mrs Siân C.Jamieson, CathyJohnson, rh AlanJohnson, Diana R.Jones, GrahamJones, Mr KevanJones, Susan ElanJowell, rh TessaJoyce, EricKeeley, BarbaraKeen, AlanKendall, LizKhan, rh SadiqLammy, rh Mr DavidLazarowicz, MarkLeslie, ChrisLloyd, TonyLove, Mr AndrewLucas, CarolineLucas, IanMactaggart, FionaMahmood, Mr KhalidMann, JohnMarsden, Mr GordonMcCabe, SteveMcCann, Mr MichaelMcCarthy, KerryMcClymont, GreggMcDonagh, SiobhainMcFadden, rh Mr PatMcGovern, AlisonMcGovern, JimMcGuire, rh Mrs AnneMcKechin, AnnMcKinnell, CatherineMeacher, rh Mr MichaelMeale, Mr AlanMearns, IanMichael, rh AlunMiliband, rh DavidMiliband, rh EdwardMiller, AndrewMitchell, AustinMoon, Mrs MadeleineMorden, JessicaMorrice, GraemeMorris, Grahame M.Mudie, Mr GeorgeMunn, MegMurphy, rh Mr JimMurphy, rh PaulMurray, IanNandy, LisaNash, PamelaO'Donnell, FionaOnwurah, ChiOsborne, SandraOwen, AlbertPaisley, IanPearce, TeresaPerkins, TobyPhillipson, BridgetPound, StephenQureshi, YasminRaynsford, rh Mr NickReed, Mr JamieReeves, RachelReynolds, EmmaRobertson, JohnRobinson, Mr GeoffreyRotheram, Steve Roy, LindsayRuane, ChrisRuddock, rh JoanSeabeck, AlisonSharma, Mr VirendraSheerman, Mr BarrySheridan, JimShuker, GavinSkinner, Mr DennisSlaughter, Mr AndySmith, rh Mr AndrewSmith, Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge)Smith, NickSmith, OwenSoulsby, Sir PeterSpellar, rh Mr JohnStraw, rh Mr JackStringer, GrahamStuart, Ms GiselaSutcliffe, Mr GerryThomas, Mr GarethThornberry, EmilyTimms, rh StephenTrickett, JonTurner, KarlTwigg, DerekTwigg, StephenUmunna, Mr ChukaVaz, rh KeithVaz, ValerieWalley, JoanWatson, Mr TomWatts, Mr DaveWhitehead, Dr AlanWicks, rh MalcolmWilliamson, ChrisWilson, PhilWinnick, Mr DavidWinterton, rh Ms RosieWood, MikeWoodcock, JohnWoolas, Mr PhilWright, DavidWright, Mr IainTellers for the Ayes:Mark Tami andMr Frank RoyNOESAdams, NigelAfriyie, AdamAldous, PeterAlexander, rh DannyAmess, Mr DavidAndrew, StuartArbuthnot, rh Mr JamesBacon, Mr RichardBagshawe, Ms LouiseBaker, NormanBaker, SteveBaldry, TonyBaldwin, HarriettBarclay, StephenBarker, GregoryBaron, Mr JohnBarwell, GavinBebb, GutoBeith, rh Sir AlanBellingham, Mr HenryBenyon, RichardBerry, JakeBingham, AndrewBinley, Mr BrianBirtwistle, GordonBlackman, BobBlackwood, NicolaBlunt, Mr CrispinBoles, NickBone, Mr PeterBottomley, PeterBradley, KarenBrady, Mr GrahamBrake, TomBray, AngieBrazier, Mr JulianBridgen, AndrewBrine, Mr SteveBrokenshire, JamesBrooke, AnnetteBruce, FionaBruce, rh MalcolmBuckland, Mr RobertBurns, ConorBurns, Mr SimonBurrowes, Mr DavidBurstow, Mr PaulByles, DanCable, rh VinceCairns, AlunCampbell, rh Sir MenziesCarmichael, Mr AlistairCarmichael, NeilCarswell, Mr DouglasCash, Mr WilliamChishti, RehmanChope, Mr ChristopherClappison, Mr JamesClark, rh GregClifton-Brown, GeoffreyCoffey, Dr ThérèseCollins, DamianColvile, OliverCox, Mr GeoffreyCrabb, StephenCrockart, MikeCrouch, TraceyDavey, Mr EdwardDavies, David T. C. (Monmouth)Davies, GlynDavies, PhilipDavis, rh Mr Davidde Bois, NickDinenage, CarolineDjanogly, Mr JonathanDorries, NadineDoyle-Price, JackieDrax, RichardDuddridge, JamesDuncan Smith, rh Mr IainDunne, Mr PhilipEdwards, JonathanEllis, MichaelEllison, JaneElphicke, CharlieEustice, GeorgeEvans, GrahamEvans, JonathanFabricant, Michael Fallon, MichaelFeatherstone, LynneField, Mr MarkFoster, Mr DonFox, rh Dr LiamFrancois, rh Mr MarkFreeman, GeorgeFreer, MikeFullbrook, LorraineFuller, RichardGale, Mr RogerGarnier, Mr EdwardGarnier, MarkGauke, Mr DavidGeorge, AndrewGibb, Mr NickGilbert, StephenGillan, rh Mrs CherylGlen, JohnGoldsmith, ZacGoodwill, Mr RobertGove, rh MichaelGraham, RichardGrant, Mrs HelenGray, Mr JamesGreen, DamianGreening, JustineGrieve, rh Mr DominicGriffiths, AndrewGummer, BenGyimah, Mr SamHague, rh Mr WilliamHalfon, RobertHames, DuncanHammond, rh Mr PhilipHammond, StephenHancock, MatthewHancock, Mr MikeHands, GregHarper, Mr MarkHarrington, RichardHarris, RebeccaHart, SimonHarvey, NickHaselhurst, rh Sir AlanHayes, Mr JohnHeald, Mr OliverHeath, Mr DavidHeaton-Harris, ChrisHemming, JohnHenderson, GordonHerbert, rh NickHinds, DamianHoban, Mr MarkHollingbery, GeorgeHollobone, Mr PhilipHolloway, Mr AdamHopkins, KrisHorwood, MartinHowarth, Mr GeraldHowell, JohnHughes, SimonHuhne, rh ChrisHunt, rh Mr JeremyHuppert, Dr JulianHurd, Mr NickJackson, Mr StewartJames, MargotJavid, SajidJenkin, Mr BernardJohnson, GarethJohnson, JosephJones, AndrewJones, Mr DavidJones, Mr MarcusKawczynski, DanielKelly, ChrisKennedy, rh Mr CharlesKirby, SimonKnight, rh Mr GregKwarteng, KwasiLaing, Mrs EleanorLamb, NormanLancaster, MarkLansley, rh Mr AndrewLatham, PaulineLaws, rh Mr DavidLeadsom, AndreaLee, JessicaLee, Dr PhillipLefroy, JeremyLeigh, Mr EdwardLeslie, CharlotteLetwin, rh Mr OliverLewis, BrandonLewis, Dr JulianLiddell-Grainger, Mr IanLidington, Mr DavidLilley, rh Mr PeterLloyd, StephenLopresti, JackLord, JonathanLoughton, TimLuff, PeterLumley, KarenMacleod, MaryMain, Mrs AnneMaude, rh Mr FrancisMay, rh Mrs TheresaMaynard, PaulMcCartney, JasonMcCartney, KarlMcIntosh, Miss AnneMcLoughlin, rh Mr PatrickMcPartland, StephenMcVey, EstherMenzies, MarkMetcalfe, StephenMills, NigelMitchell, rh Mr AndrewMoore, rh MichaelMordaunt, PennyMorgan, NickyMorris, Anne MarieMorris, DavidMorris, JamesMosley, StephenMowat, DavidMulholland, GregMundell, rh DavidMunt, TessaMurray, SheryllMurrison, Dr AndrewNeill, RobertNewmark, Mr BrooksNewton, SarahNokes, CarolineNuttall, Mr DavidO'Brien, Mr StephenOfford, Mr MatthewOllerenshaw, Eric Opperman, GuyOttaway, RichardPaice, Mr JamesParish, NeilPatel, PritiPaterson, rh Mr OwenPawsey, MarkPenning, MikePenrose, JohnPercy, AndrewPhillips, StephenPickles, rh Mr EricPincher, ChristopherPoulter, Dr DanielPritchard, MarkPugh, Dr JohnRaab, Mr DominicRandall, rh Mr JohnReckless, MarkRedwood, rh Mr JohnRees-Mogg, JacobReevell, SimonReid, Mr AlanRifkind, rh Sir MalcolmRobathan, Mr AndrewRobertson, HughRobertson, Mr LaurenceRogerson, DanRosindell, AndrewRudd, AmberRussell, BobRutley, DavidSanders, Mr AdrianSandys, LauraSelous, AndrewSharma, AlokShelbrooke, AlecShepherd, Mr RichardSimmonds, MarkSimpson, Mr KeithSkidmore, ChrisSmith, HenrySmith, JulianSmith, Sir RobertSoames, NicholasSoubry, AnnaSpelman, rh Mrs CarolineSpencer, Mr MarkStanley, rh Sir JohnStephenson, AndrewStevenson, JohnStewart, BobStewart, IainStewart, RoryStreeter, Mr GaryStride, MelStuart, Mr GrahamStunell, AndrewSturdy, JulianSwales, IanSwayne, Mr DesmondSwinson, JoSwire, Mr HugoSyms, Mr RobertTapsell, Sir PeterTeather, SarahThurso, JohnTimpson, Mr EdwardTomlinson, JustinTredinnick, DavidTruss, ElizabethTurner, Mr AndrewUppal, PaulVara, Mr ShaileshVickers, MartinVilliers, rh Mrs TheresaWalker, Mr CharlesWallace, Mr BenWalter, Mr RobertWard, Mr DavidWatkinson, AngelaWeatherley, MikeWebb, SteveWharton, JamesWheeler, HeatherWhite, ChrisWhittaker, CraigWhittingdale, Mr JohnWiggin, BillWilliams, HywelWilliams, Mr MarkWilliams, RogerWilliams, StephenWilson, Mr RobWollaston, Dr SarahYoung, rh Sir GeorgeZahawi, NadhimTellers for the Noes:Jeremy Wright andMark HunterQuestion accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

19:16

Division 58

Ayes: 324

---

Conservative: 277
Liberal Democrat: 47

Noes: 230

---

Labour: 224
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House notes the appalling fiscal deficit left by the last Government and reiterates the urgent need to restore the nation to economic health; recognises that the police will need to play their part in reducing that deficit; and welcomes the Government’s proposed policing reforms, which will deliver a more responsive and efficient police service, less encumbered by bureaucracy, more accountable to the public and, most importantly, better equipped to fight crime.

Diabetes

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

19:29

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise in this House the very important issue of the prevention of diabetes. I must first declare my interest as a sufferer of type 2 diabetes. I was diagnosed with this condition when I was asked by my local GP to open a diabetes awareness day in my constituency. I attended, I was given a test, and I was telephoned the next day by my GP to inform me that I had type 2 diabetes.

Since 1996, the number of diabetes sufferers in the United Kingdom has risen from 1.4 million to 2.6 million, and it costs the NHS £1 million an hour. I believe it is vital that we stop this epidemic. Diabetes is an incurable metabolic condition that leads to high blood sugar levels, which can have serious consequences for short-term and long-term health. The hormone insulin, which is made by the pancreas, helps glucose to leave the blood and enter the body’s cells, where it is used for energy. People with diabetes experience raised blood sugar because insulin is not being produced by the pancreas or there is insufficient insulin or insulin action for the body’s needs.

As the House will know, there are two types of diabetes: type 1 and type 2. In the UK, 90% of adults with diabetes have type 2, where the pancreas produces insufficient quantities of insulin and/or the insulin has a reduced effect on the muscle and liver cells. Type 2 diabetes can be managed through healthy eating and regular exercise, but if the disease progresses, anti-diabetes tablets, incretins or insulin injections may need to be taken. In type 1 diabetes, the body does not produce insulin at all as a result of the body’s defence system attacking its insulin-producing cells. Treatment involves daily insulin injections, in conjunction with healthy eating and regular exercise. Type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed in children or young adults. For the purpose of this debate, I will be referring largely to type 2 diabetes, which is, in my view, preventable, as opposed to type 1, which is not.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

May I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for his support for the all-party group on diabetes? Some studies have shown that preventive action can put off the diagnosis even of type 1 diabetes, so he is speaking for all diabetics tonight.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in this House as chair of the all-party group, which has made a profound difference to Parliament’s understanding of the issue. He is quite right—the research does indicate that. It is important that we take on board the very important research that is being done in this area, as he describes, and indeed pay tribute to the work of other organisations such as Diabetes UK, which has campaigned for so many years on the issue.

Diabetes is a ticking time bomb—a time bomb that needs to be defused. It is estimated that by 2025 more than 4 million people will suffer with diabetes. That will be a shocking increase in the numbers.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on choosing this subject for debate. Will he also pay tribute to the work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation for the work that it is doing to try to highlight the difficulties of young people with diabetes?

[Keith Vaz]

I certainly will. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has a debate next Wednesday in which he will explore the issue of young people and diabetes. I know that his own daughter is a sufferer of type 1 diabetes. I certainly pay tribute to the work that that organisation does. These voluntary organisations are of great importance in raising awareness.

It is not just diabetes itself that causes problems, it is also the complications and other conditions that arise from having it. For example, diabetes is the leading cause of blindness, amputation, renal disease and cardiovascular disease. Some 4,200 people in England are blind due to diabetic complications, and that number increases by 1,280 a year. Some 100 people a week lose a toe, foot or lower limb due to diabetes, and cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death and disability in people with diabetes, accounting for 44% of fatalities among people with type 1 diabetes and 52% among people with type 2. Diabetes is also the single most common cause of end-stage renal disease. It is evident that suffering from diabetes is detrimental to a person’s general health, especially when it is not managed effectively.

Diabetes currently costs the NHS 10% of its annual resources, and in the next 15 years the costs will continue to escalate significantly as the prevalence of diabetes increases. The NHS cannot allow or afford the diabetes explosion to continue. Diabetes and its complications cost the NHS about £9 billion each year, which, as I have said, equates to £1 million an hour. About 7% of that is attributable to the cost of prescription medicines, and a significant proportion is made up of the costs of treating serious long-term complications of the condition.

How do we avoid those costs, both human and financial? Early identification is the key. The later the diagnosis of diabetes, the higher the human and financial price that we have to pay. It is estimated that there are currently 1 million people living with diabetes in the UK who are simply not aware of having the condition. A fundamental problem is that type 2 diabetes is more often than not an asymptomatic condition. It is thought that many people with type 2 diabetes may have had it for nine to 12 years before diagnosis. As I said, it was sheer chance that I turned up in my doctor’s surgery that morning to be told that I had type 2 diabetes. Raising awareness of diabetes and making testing available is therefore essential if we are to get a grip on the problem.

I could mention a number of organisations, including Diabetes UK, and I pay tribute also to the Silver Star organisation, which was established in Leicester some years ago and continues to campaign among the south Asian community in particular. Such organisations are vital because the NHS cannot do it all on its own.

Diagnosis does not necessarily mean that a sufferer is getting the care and help that they need. It is thought that approximately 40% of people in the UK with diabetes are in poor diabetic health, which means that their condition is not being effectively regulated. Of all the reasons why people are liable to diabetes, obesity has been identified as having the strongest association with type 2 diabetes. Almost two in every three people in the UK are overweight or obese, and the National Audit Office suggests that 47% of type 2 diabetes cases in England can be attributed to obesity. That puts an extremely high number of people at risk of contracting it.

The most deprived people in the UK are two and a half times more likely than average to have diabetes at any given age. That is surely symptomatic of the inequalities that exist not just in our health system but in our society. Type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of south Asian descent and up to three times more common among people of African and Afro-Caribbean origin. Although we must raise awareness in all sections of society, it is clear that knowing which groups are at the highest risk gives us an advantage in targeting campaigns and prevention programmes.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Whenever I have raised the issue with him, he has been extremely helpful and listened very carefully to what I have had to say. I am sure that when he responds, he will tell us about the programmes that currently exist, some of which were started by the previous Government. If there is one thing that I wish to stress to him, it is the need to prevent the condition rather than treat it. With the inevitable changes in our NHS—there will be reductions in some areas in the context of the coalition Government’s overall commitment to keep health expenditure at last year’s levels—the more we can spend on preventive work, the better it is in the long run. If we spent the £1 million an hour that we currently spend on treating diabetes on preventing it, in the long run, some of those in the Chamber tonight who are younger than me, and their children and grandchildren, will benefit greatly.

I shall conclude by raising one local constituency issue. About a year ago, I had a meeting with the then Health Secretary and the chief executive of the local primary care trust, Mr Tim Rideout, who recently informed me that he is leaving Leicester to go to London to work on the commissioning programme. I thank him and the PCT staff for their work, and I am sure that when the Minister meets him, he will find that he is an excellent officer of the NHS. Leicester was promised a state-of-the-art diabetes centre of excellence. In fact, when we went to see the then Health Secretary, we did not even ask for money—it was in the budget, so very unusually, a delegation led by an MP did not ask for money. We were told by the PCT that £6 million was in the budget and that a centre of excellence would be created in Leicester, principally because of the high calibre of diabetes experts in the city, and obviously because the diaspora who live there mean that it is the best place to conduct such research.

However, I understand that that money is no longer available because the PCT is to be scrapped. I know that budgets are very tight indeed, but I hope that the Minister will consider whether there are any resources that will allow Leicester PCT to fulfil its ambition of creating a centre of excellence, not just for the people of Leicester, but for the people of our country, so that we can be a leading part of diabetes prevention in Europe and the rest of the world.

I ask people in every country that I visit about their diabetes figures. I was recently told in the Gulf that 20% of the population of Dubai have diabetes or are susceptible to diabetes. Sometimes, people have the condition but do not realise that they have it. I was also recently in Kenya, where the figures were very high indeed. When I was there, I was told that you, Mr Speaker, will be leading the delegation next week to the Commonwealth conference. People in Kisumu, which is my wife’s place of birth, told me that it, too, has a diabetes explosion. They need not so much medicines, but food to enable them to change their diets. As in the Gulf, many of the community eat dates and, in the Asian community, sweets, especially at festival times. We could control diabetes if people changed their diets.

I know that this is an Adjournment debate and that it is not in prime time, but I am delighted to see so many right hon. and hon. Members here. If we act now, we can save the health service a huge amount of money and save lives. I hope that the Minister agrees.

19:43

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for taking the opportunity to apply for this debate, and congratulate him on his good fortune in securing it. It follows on from the questions he asked at Health questions yesterday. I know that he has an enduring, personal interest in pursuing this cause, and I pay tribute to his work, effort and leadership in raising awareness of diabetes among the south Asian communities in his constituency. He rightly paid tribute to the work of the Silver Star organisation.

Let me first address his final point, which was on his discussions with Ministers in the previous Administration and the intentions to create a centre of excellence. I need to be honest with him. I cannot give him an undertaking tonight other than the most important one that any Minister should give at the Dispatch Box, which is that I will go away and properly consider the matter and come back to him as speedily as I can. If that means a further discussion face to face, I would be happy to do that as well.

I also look forward to the debate that I will have with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on type 1 diabetes, and I hope that we will get the opportunity to explore some other issues on that topic. While these are not prime-time debates, they are an opportunity to air issues that affect the lives of our constituents, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East for raising this matter tonight. He is right to highlight the disturbing rises in the rates of diabetes in this country, because it is placing a huge strain on the NHS, and has a profound effect on people’s long-term health, with the most deprived and excluded groups often paying the highest price.

Diabetes could be described as a head-to-toe condition. Complications—many extremely serious if poorly managed—can affect every part of the body. I was particularly shocked, as I prepared for the debate, to discover that 73 lower limb amputations occur every week due to complications from diabetes. More shocking still, 80% of those amputations could have been prevented, some by lifestyle changes and others by changes in the approach of the NHS. Every preventable amputation is an appalling human tragedy, and something we need to improve on, which is why I am so pleased that we are discussing these issues tonight.

There was plenty in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech that I supported and much common ground between us. I wholeheartedly agree that we must do more to prevent diabetes across all age groups and all social backgrounds. The Government’s approach therefore has three levels. The first is the population level, and in diabetes, this is about improving general health across the population at large, recognising—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said—that diet and lifestyle are key risk factors in diabetes. Then come targeted interventions for people at risk, which recognise that we can reduce and even reverse the worst effects of diabetes if we intervene early enough. Finally, there is the long-term management of established disease, and people with diabetes and clinicians must work together to delay, reduce or prevent complications. We need to get all three aspects right in order to secure the better results in diabetes care that all hon. Members would wish to see.

On the population level, rises in diabetes are closely linked to lifestyle and behaviour, which makes this a considerable public health challenge. Much of this is about individuals taking responsibility for their own health—for example, choosing not to have some of the sweets that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—by changing what they eat, drink and how much exercise they take. We are clear that the Government and the NHS, while they have their parts to play, cannot and should not do everything. But what we can do is educate people about the risks, and give them the information to lead healthier lives and understand and change the influences that govern their behaviour.

I can confirm that the Change4Life programme will continue to be a focal point, as it has been successful in putting the issue on people’s radar. The Change4Life brand will continue, but we will need to change it, as it can no longer be about glossy, national advertising campaigns directed from the centre. We need Change4Life to become less an old-style, centrally directed campaign, and more a genuinely social movement, owned collectively by communities, families, voluntary organisations and industry, and driven locally. Hand in hand with this, we need a much more targeted and community-led approach to health improvement as a whole. In the White Paper, we said that local councils will be given a central leadership role on public health, and we would expect local authorities to work with the NHS and other services to develop the appropriate strategies and approaches.

[Keith Vaz]

Some of the key people in this are GPs. I welcome everything that the Minister has said so far, but we need to get guidance out to GPs to tell them that they need to be proactive, as my GP Dr Farouki was. When they have a patient who matches the criteria and is therefore at risk, they should perform the test, which takes only five minutes. Such guidance could be very effective.

[Mr Burstow]

I am grateful for that point. I will say a little about guidelines in a moment, because good news is on the way in that regard.

I was talking about the public health role of local authorities that we are developing. It will be supported by a dedicated ring-fenced budget and the implementation of a new health premium, which will allow local areas to target reductions in health inequalities, including inequalities associated with diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases. We are also committed to working with industry on a new public health responsibility deal to ensure that business takes action together with others to support the nation’s health.

On early intervention and diagnosis, the right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of identifying pre-diabetes. There are two developments that relate to the role of GPs. First, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is developing guidance on preventing adult pre-diabetes in the first place. This will be published next year and will inform and support local public health strategies and others, as I have already described. Secondly, NICE is also preparing guidance on preventing pre-diabetes from progressing to type 2 diabetes. That will be a valuable tool in our fight against diabetes, and will help GPs and other health professionals to advise and support people at risk, hopefully to stop the disease in its tracks.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that earlier intervention and better diagnosis is crucial. NHS Health Check, which was introduced by the last Government, can prevent more than 4,000 people a year from developing diabetes, and could detect 20,000 cases earlier, so it can be, and should be, a very powerful means of detecting and supporting people at risk.

[Mr George Howarth]

Before the Minister moves on to the wider issues, I want to make a point about GPs and how they can be helped, which he was talking about. One of the difficulties is that often GPs are ill equipped to diagnose diabetes in the first place, and there is an argument for them to be given a series of protocols on how they should deal with certain symptoms. That would lead them towards a proper diagnosis, so I hope that he will consider something along those lines.

[Mr Burstow]

I will both consider it and hopefully have the opportunity to come back in next week’s debate and say a little more about it.

[Mr Sanders]

The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) makes a very important point. There is also the role of pharmacists, who need to be aware of the symptoms that people might describe to them. There are also the opticians and chiropodists. Any number of health professional could be involved in a preventive campaign.

[Mr Burstow]

My hon. Friend is right, and I certainly pay tribute to him for his work as chair of the all-party group on diabetes. He has been a powerful advocate on these issues for many years. I applaud what he has done, and he is right—pharmacists and other health care professionals are part of what we need to do in order better to equip the whole service for detecting and intervening.

I was told that the right hon. Member for Leicester East was going to ask about extending the age range. That is an important point that needs to be discussed. At the moment, NHS Health Check starts at 40 and calls people every five years. The best clinical and most cost-effective case was made for doing it at that age. However, there is nothing to prevent primary care trusts from commissioning services that widen the age range. They should be considering that, particularly in areas with more susceptible populations, and clearly Leicester is one of those cases.

[Keith Vaz]

Last year, I wrote to the chief executive of every PCT asking how much they spent on preventing diabetes and on health checks such as the ones the Minister described. Some thought it was a freedom of information request and became very defensive. Will the Minister go back and get this information from his Department and place it in the Library of the House?

[Mr Burstow]

I will look into that. My view is that we need far more transparency when it comes to such issues, so that people can make comparisons of the performance of their local organisations and hold them to account over how they spend taxpayers’ money on these services.

I want to move on to long-term management. Once diagnosed, people need personalised support to manage what is a highly complex and changeable condition. A person with diabetes must know how to spot and report changes in their health, and how to get the right services to prevent more serious problems. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) in Health questions yesterday. He was right to do so, because it is important to ensure that we have good care planning, embodying the principle of “No decision about me, without me”, which is vital in starting to transform the relationship between GPs and patients. Indeed, the diabetes year of care programme, led by Diabetes UK and the NHS, is already looking at how we can improve care plans for diabetes. Education goes hand in hand with that. I know that many NHS organisations offer patient-structured education programmes, specialist diabetes advice, care planning discussions and annual checks. We need more of that: it needs to be consistently applied and we need to ensure that good practice becomes the norm.

On treatment, it is no surprise to learn that the best results are achieved when there is a fully integrated, multidisciplinary team working across primary and secondary care, which picks up on my hon. Friend’s point. Programmes such as the excellent “Think glucose” campaign and the guidance produced by NHS Diabetes on in-patient management are already helping hospitals to discharge patients sooner and give them a better experience of care. However, there is more to do on that—as well as in other services, such as foot care and eye services—to ensure that problems are dealt with early on, and certainly long before amputations become necessary.

Meanwhile, in primary care the relationship with GPs is crucial, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said. We need them to be alert to the signs of pre-diabetes in routine consultations and to play a key role in the ongoing management of existing conditions. How we incentivise GPs to do so is a key issue. Clearly the qualities and outcomes framework is one avenue that could be explored, but it is for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to determine what QOF indicators are ultimately introduced. My hon. Friend referred to pharmacists. I certainly agree that they provide another channel for reaching those at risk, which is precisely why they are one of the ways in which health checks can be used in various settings.

In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about his experiences in Leicester and the important lessons that he has drawn. He is right to point to the financial climate, which is undoubtedly a constraint on what any Government can do. However, it is also correct to say that this is not just about beds and buildings; it is actually about services and where they matter most in identifying diabetes early and then providing the appropriate care. The issue is fundamentally about outlooks, attitudes and priorities in the NHS and beyond. The principles that we have set out in the White Paper—pushing power downwards, paying for quality and strengthening the voice of patients—will bring fresh impetus to improving outcomes for diabetes.

It is clear that this issue is not just for the NHS, but for all of us—for the society in which we live. We need to strengthen preventive action on diabetes. Let me conclude by saying that I share the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and passion. I look forward to maintaining a close dialogue with him, and with my hon. Friend and the all-party group on diabetes, and to participating in next week’s debate on type 1 diabetes.

Question put and agreed to.

19:57

House adjourned.

Blockade of Gaza

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Trowbridge, and others,

Declares that the Israeli Army attacked a convoy of ships destined to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza; further declares that the six boats included over 600 peace activists from over 50 nations and 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid; notes that, in the aftermath of the attack, nine internationalists died and at least 20 were wounded; further declares that the humanitarian workers and peace activists were attempting to deliver assistance to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians; and further declares that the petitioners believe that this attack on civilians in international water attests to Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza and that it is evidence of Israel’s lack of commitment to a peaceful and viable solution for the Palestinian people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to condemn Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to withhold all military financing of Israel, and to stop all trade until Israel shows a commitment to non-violence and peace.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000857]

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 8 September 2010

[John Robertson in the Chair]

Football Clubs (Governance)

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Stephen Crabb.)

11:59

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have been granted the opportunity to debate this issue. I am equally delighted to have been joined by Members from both sides of the House; their presence confirms the interest in and importance of the subject at the highest level. I also welcome the many people in the Public Gallery.

I am aware that a debate on this subject in this very Chamber was initiated in February by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd). That debate touched on many of the ills currently afflicting our national game. I am keen to establish from the outset that I do not seek to open up a brand new wide-ranging debate today; I simply want to continue a dialogue that has already begun and to highlight an idea that has already gained considerable traction. I should add that I am aware of the excellent work carried out by the all-party group on football, and I acknowledge its commitment and expertise. I am pleased to see members of that group here today and I look forward to their contribution to the debate.

It is important to acknowledge the progress made on football governance by the previous Government—particularly that made by senior members of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Thanks to their efforts, much of the ground work has been done. I hope that colleagues will welcome my humble attempt to build on that foundation.

I do not propose to discuss football governance per se or any other of the plethora of football-related topics. Instead, I intend to address one specific aspect: the role of supporters in the governance of football clubs. Today’s debate feeds into the wider debate on the reform of football governance. In my view, a broad package of reform should include changes at every level of the football hierarchy—but that is a debate for another day.

I declare an interest at this juncture. Not only am I a self-confessed football fanatic, but my constituency happens to play host to two renowned football clubs—Everton, which I have to mention first, and Liverpool FC. I also declare an interest as a season ticket holder for the red half of that duo. I hasten to add that that is not the sole reason for my being keen to secure this debate—not entirely, at least. Indeed, Northampton Town Supporters Trust, the country’s longest established supporters collective, says that this subject has an inescapably political dimension. I shall elaborate on what I mean by “politics” a little later.

I start with the basics. In 2009, the all-party group on football found that those who are most under-represented in football are those who should have the most say—the fans. One of the biggest problems connected with football governance is that, at most levels of the game, those who pay for it are excluded from the decision-making structures in clubs, leagues and governing bodies. This debate would be an entirely academic exercise if football fans were satisfied with that state of affairs and if there was no appetite for change. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. A YouGov poll conducted in April this year reportedly found that 56% of fans wished to take control of their clubs. In Manchester and Liverpool, where fans are outraged at the way in which their clubs are being exploited by wealthy foreign businessmen, the figure rose steeply to 82% and 72% respectively.

We might expect such findings in relation to supporters themselves, but there is a broad in-principle consensus among politicians, sport analysts, football governing bodies and clubs that fans have a role to play. In 2003, the then chairman of the Football Association, Lord Triesman, said that clubs should be owned by people who embrace the history and values of football and who want to see their clubs succeed. In 2008, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), urged Liverpool supporters to take back the club from within. In 2009, UEFA president Michel Platini told a newspaper:

“I think it is a great idea…that the supporters invest in a club because they at the end of the day defend the club’s identity”.

Parties across the board profess to be supportive. What is more, the concept of support and engagement is neither new nor—at least in theory—controversial.

A range of ownership and governance models exist, from token support and representation on club boards to outright ownership. In the United Kingdom, football supporters’ trusts have been established at more than 160 clubs, and 15 clubs are owned or controlled by such trusts. More than 110 trusts have shareholdings in their clubs, and almost 60 trusts have directors sitting on the club boards. Progress has clearly been made, largely due to the effort and commitment at grass-roots level, and that is to be commended.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have to declare an interest; I am a season-ticket holder at Port Vale football club. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the fans of Port Vale bought out their club when it was in administration also suggests a way forward? The dilemma and the main cause of tension is that football clubs depend on investment. The degree of investment now needed because of the unlevel playing field brought about by the premiership gives the impression that people can simply come in with that money, but it is not necessarily available at the local level.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members please keep interventions short?

[Steve Rotheram]

I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and Robbie Williams are both Port Vale supporters. She is probably right that the premiership is top-heavy, given its revenue.

I return to the question of football governance. The problem, as I said earlier, is that it is patchy and sluggish, and is largely the preserve of lower division clubs and non-professional governing authorities. They might be proactive and continue to reform their own governing structure, but it happens at a snail’s pace; the premier league, however, remains a law unto itself, with little apparent interest in seriously engaging with the very fan base that sustains it. It is no coincidence that supporters of nearly 70% of clubs in the top five divisions of English football and the top four divisions in Scotland have established supporters’ trusts. However, a 2009 report indicated that only 19 of the 92 Football League and premier league clubs have supporters’ representatives on their boards, which suggests that the supporters’ movement is thriving but that the clubs do not take them seriously.

The mood is changing, however, and momentum is growing. Premier league supporters are not prepared to do things by halves. They are pushing for outright control. Supporters of Manchester United and Liverpool FC, both iconic premiership clubs, have taken collective action and set their sights on more than token representation on their boards; the Manchester United Supporters Trust and its equivalent on Merseyside, SOS-ShareLiverpoolFC, advocate a long-term vision of outright club ownership.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining what is probably the most popular debate ever in Westminster Hall. He is clearly making history here today.

As my hon. Friend knows, in 2005 the Glazers took over Manchester United. The club is now £700 million in debt, with £69 million a year being paid in interest—and that money comes from the fans through tickets and merchandise. It is an appalling situation. Does my hon. Friend support a more rigorous “fit and proper person” test in respect of takeovers of football clubs? In Germany, every club has to be 51% owned by the supporters. Does he support a similar provision for clubs in this country? Such a scheme would make a real difference.

[Steve Rotheram]

Absolutely. As for the “fit and proper person” test, it was one of the recommendations in the 2009 report, and it needs to be acted on. I will come later to my right hon. Friend’s point about the German model, in which supporters have a 51% stake, and to the models in Spain. It is interesting that a YouGov poll survey earlier this year found that supporters would be prepared to invest on average £600 each to buy their football clubs. If we do the maths, the prospect of supporters seizing control is not quite as far-fetched as it may initially seem.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The amount of money that my hon. Friend mentions demonstrates the extent to which such a suggestion is out of reach for many people. At one time, football was very much the working man’s game, but it has become an increasingly expensive pastime. If one has to have £600 to own a stake in a club, the prospect will be out of reach for a large percentage of our society. The example of the Glazers, who bought the club with the club’s own money and then put it into debt, shows how the game has been stolen away from the supporters and become merely an interest to big business.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we keep the interventions as short as possible? Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so please keep the questions short.

[Steve Rotheram]

Just to build on what I said, the proposal is very doable. A recent example of democracy in action has been demonstrated by Arsenal Supporters Trust, which invited fans to invest in a new “fanshare” scheme. For as little as £10 a month, Arsenal FC supporters can now contribute to a pool, which, in time, will be used to buy a stake in the premier league club. That will entitle shareholders to vote on club policy, receive financial and corporate information and attend the annual general meeting. The club is fully behind the scheme. The chief executive described the enhanced supporter-club relationships as

“good for the club’s soul.”

The four major shareholders all fully endorse the scheme. Arsenal FC is one of the more enlightened premiership clubs, but the success of its trust demonstrates that supporters are quite capable of forming intelligent, committed and influential collectives.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his choice of subject for today’s debate. Does he accept that the incremental nature of the Arsenal model is one way of getting over the difficulties of the vast sums of money involved in fans’ taking over at any given club, particularly in premiership land?

[Steve Rotheram]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend; there is not a one-size-fits-all response to this problem. First, we must identify that there is a problem, to see what we as Members of Parliament can do to alleviate it. Football supporters are shouting from the rooftops about it.

In my own neck of the woods, the pressure group Keeping Everton in our City achieved its objectives by stopping its club from being used as a pawn by big business. The aforementioned SOS-ShareLiverpoolFC has more than 30,000 members and a board packed full of expert professionals with a detailed proposal for funding and securing a buy-out of its club and for governance restructuring along more democratic lines. Supporters are thinking and talking big.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On the specific point about governance from the fans, does the hon. Gentleman know—perhaps the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) can help as well—what the fans who may be running a club would think, say, of the commercial viability of a ground share between Liverpool and Everton? Would that be an example of fans’ passions overriding the business case?

[Steve Rotheram]

Give us an easy one! The tribal nature of football, which I will come to later if I have the opportunity, can sometimes override the common-sense approach. The example that the hon. Gentleman gives is a good one. Although the economics stack up in favour of Liverpool and Everton sharing a football ground, there are not many examples in the whole of the United Kingdom of such ground-sharing schemes. It is like suggesting to a Man United supporter that they share Manchester City’s stadium. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it would be a difficult proposal to sell on the doorstep.

There are those who would say, “Leave them to it. Keep politics out of football and football out of politics.” The UK Government have traditionally veered away from being heavy-handed in football business, leaving the sport to its own internal devices and regulatory systems. However, the game itself is now a huge, complex and lucrative industry, which, by definition, impacts on the economy. Premier league clubs alone are saddled with an estimated cumulative debt of about £3 billion. We ignore that and the culture it has permitted it at our peril.

Another major money-yielding industry that, until recently, was deemed untouchable and was pretty much left to get on with things on its own went belly up. On that basis alone, there is a strong case for the Government to intervene. I will go even further and say that the Government not only have a right but a responsibility to get involved. Football has received much financial and political support from Government over the past decade or so, and, at a national level, with Government support, it is bidding to host the World cup. Therefore, in return, the Government have a right to expect the highest standards of governance and a duty to step in when the game falls short of those standards, which it currently does.

However, the case is more nuanced than that; for many, it is personal. The football industry is unique because football is a product like no other. Supporters in general are not simply consumers who can exercise purchase power and walk away from the product if they are unhappy with its quality or performance. Football fans invest emotionally as well as financially in their clubs. Club allegiances, as we have just identified, are deep-rooted and passionate and are often passed down from generation to generation. They are inextricably bound with community ties and identities. In that respect, football, like politics, is tribal. It commands loyalty and constancy and requires member engagement if it is to thrive. The industry itself should recognise and respect that.

The issue is political in other ways. It is said that the new politics is about transparency and accountability, and about more rigorous and meaningful forms of democracy. It is precisely those democratic principles—transparency and accountability—that football followers wish to see enshrined in the conduct of their clubs. It is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the age that football fans should seek greater influence in how their clubs are run, particularly when they see the clubs being run into the ground by profit-fixated asset strippers with little or no understanding of or empathy with a club’s heritage or culture.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I congratulate my fellow Liverpool supporter on securing this debate. However, I do not agree that Governments should intervene in this matter. The whole issue has arisen, particularly for the supporters, because of the financial engineering that has been going on. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that instead of trying to regulate in a particular way, we should use tax incentives to encourage mutuals, such as the Arsenal share scheme? Instead of debt-financed football clubs, which rely on tax incentives, we should have a different approach that encourages supporters’ ownership of the clubs.

[Steve Rotheram]

I think that if that recommendation emerged from this debate and was supported by Members in the hon. Lady’s party, that would be a fantastic outcome. Hopefully, during the rest of the debate, we can tease out some further recommendations.

This is a timely debate, because the calls for greater supporter involvement chime with the coalition Government’s much-vaunted big society idea. It is altruism that drives supporter activism. Supporters’ trusts are run by people who give their time, money, effort and skills for the love of the game. Their overriding motive is to see their clubs prosper, on and off the pitch.

If the big society is all about citizens engaging proactively with activities and institutions that impact on their lives and the shared life of their communities—although, frankly, it all depends on which Minister is trying to define it—football governance reforms provide an ideal opportunity for the Government to push for improved supporter representation and involvement.

The social benefits of supporter involvement are already in evidence. A report recently commissioned by Supporters Direct entitled “The Social and Community Value of Football” examined this issue in full and detailed the specific advantages of supporter ownership, including

“a greater sense of engagement and inclusion with fans and wider stakeholders; better integration with the community; more open and responsible governance; good relationships with local authorities, and partnerships with voluntary organisations.”

So there is really no excuse not to take this idea on board.

The Conservative party made the right noises in its election manifesto, pledging that

“we will reform the football governance arrangements so co-operative ownership models can be established by supporters”.

I note with a little concern that the coalition Government made a rather more non-committal promise to “encourage” reform in its coalition agreement in May. I may be splitting semantic hairs here, but I sincerely hope that that did not signal a downgrading of the commitment.

My own party has a proven track record on football governance reform. It was the Labour Government who introduced the umbrella organisation for fans, Supporters Direct, in 1999. It also commissioned the Burns inquiry into football governance in 2005, and tackled the Football Association and other football governing authorities in 2009 over their failure both to work together and to implement reforms. The new Government have talked the talk on the big society and the role of football supporters in the governance of football clubs. The challenge now—I throw down the gauntlet for the Minister—is to walk the walk.

I should say a word about supporters’ trusts, as they are crucial to the success of this kind of democracy in action. They are formal, democratic and not-for-profit fans organisations and they aim to extend supporter ownership, representation and influence at their respective clubs. Sadly, if unsurprisingly, they have commonly been founded in response to financial or mismanagement crises at a club; crises that have compelled supporters to take matters into their own hands.

On a far more positive note, supporters’ trusts are generally voluntary, they operate effectively on minimal funding and members are motivated purely by their passion for the game. In that respect, they are true grass-roots movements and their successes prove that fan ownership, control or representation can work. Many of them are run along the lines of the extremely professional Northampton Town Supporters Trust, which was established in 1992. At that time, it was the first collective of its kind. It enjoys a shareholding in the second division club, as well as representation on the board of directors.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Barrow, many people share their love of Barrow AFC with support for other successful clubs; I would say that those clubs are Liverpool, Manchester United and Sheffield Wednesday. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the supporters right across the country—who would imagine that there are Manchester United fans right across the country?—who have lobbied Members of Parliament to get involved in this debate? I find their energy extraordinary and it is a real sign that this can be a successful venture for football organisations.

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those supporters. I think that we ignore football fans at our peril. It is not just about Manchester United or Liverpool, or the other big clubs. Bees United acquired a 60% stake in Brentford football club in 2006, which made Brentford, who are in league one, one of only two Football League clubs to be majority-owned by their supporters. My hon. Friend mentioned Sheffield Wednesday; I think that it was Brentford who enjoyed a resounding victory over Sheffield Wednesday at the weekend.

As I have said, no discussion on this subject would be complete without reference to the Spanish and German models of club ownership, which I suspect are feared and grudgingly admired in equal measure by the corporate football world in the UK. Both Spain and Germany boast thriving, long-established equivalents to our premier league. Clubs in those two leagues exist in a culture of mutual or co-operative club ownership. In both leagues, it is a matter of civic pride that top-flight football clubs should be controlled or owned by their supporters. Spain’s FC Barcelona, which is the “big daddy” in this respect, is routinely held up as a utopian ideal of football club governance and is structured as a co-operative society owned by some 170,000 members, with a democratically elected president—and Barcelona do not do so badly, generally. It is a case of “horses for courses”.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. However, it is only fair to say that Spain has an entirely different model for distributing television revenues from Britain. Spanish clubs negotiate TV rights individually and they go directly to Barcelona and Real Madrid, so the majority of TV rights and therefore the majority of TV money goes directly to those two big clubs, and the smaller clubs underneath them, which constitute the larger Spanish football family, suffer accordingly. By contrast, here there is collective negotiation for those TV rights, putting British clubs on a very different financial basis.

[Steve Rotheram]

I hear what the Minister is saying. I myself do not think that the Barcelona model or any other model is a panacea. I am not suggesting that, all of a sudden, the fans of every single football club will go out and seize control of their clubs in a revolution, but regarding the way in which clubs such as Barcelona are structured, the argument cannot be made that those structures make them less likely to be successful.

As I was saying, it is a case of “horses for courses” and it would be naive to suggest that we should simply adopt the Barcelona model or anything else off the rack. Clubs such as Barcelona are long-established products of their respective cultures, politics and histories, and there is little evidence that their ownership models would prove suitable, or even desirable, here in the UK. It would be equally naive to suggest that supporter ownership or control of major clubs in the UK would prove to be some kind of panacea. Teams will always have lousy seasons, as my team did last year. There will always be controversy surrounding management decisions, many clubs will intermittently struggle financially and there have been failed, or at least unworkable, experiments in supporter ownership before now.

A useful lesson that might be drawn from those experiences, and from the European models that I cited earlier, is that mutuality alone is not enough. Mutuality must be coupled with effective business practice and regulation. Supporters fully appreciate that. Manchester United Supporters Trust has declared that

“we have neither the desire nor the intention to run the day-to-day affairs of the club. A club like United should be run by professionals whose experience and expertise will ensure its success.”

Such a sentiment should allay the fears of those who view supporters as little more than a bunch of amateurs who wish to take over the show, or lunatics taking over the asylum. Supporters are not stupid—they want and recognise what is best for their club. The point is not to establish some type of cure-all for the systemic problems in the game’s governance but to seek ways to make that governance fairer, more robust and more fitting for a global sport in the 21st century.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the timeliness of this debate. Does he not agree that an essential element in coming to grips with the problem of the modern-day game is that however difficult it is, we must grasp the nettle of the obscenity of the six-figure-sum-per-week footballer, which is totally unsustainable and is corrupting the game from within?

[Steve Rotheram]

It is a difficult issue. I am a supporter of one of the supposedly big four—Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool—and that is how we and some other clubs attract the big footballers. Implementing that idea would be like turkeys voting for Christmas, but I understand the rationale behind the obscenity of somebody earning such huge sums when the people paying his wages are on a fraction of what he earns a year.

I have described the “Why?”, so the next question is “How?”. What can we as politicians do to assist? The social value report that I mentioned concluded with several recommendations on how national Government can do their bit. Time constraints prevent me from listing them, but they are excellent ideas worthy of serious exploration, and I urge interested colleagues to take a look at the document.

Having made a fundamental commitment to encouraging reform, the coalition Government have not yet revealed how they intend to proceed, but the previous Labour Government published a raft of proposals before the 2010 election. They include making Government support—especially financial support—conditional on co-operation, creating the right framework for better regulation from the top down and grassroots up, and working with governing bodies to enshrine supporters’ rights to buy their clubs and/or be represented in the ownership and governance of the club.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One thing that people have mentioned to me is their concern about admission fees. A well-heeled Chelsea supporter can attend matches on a regular basis; an Arsenal supporter does not have to be as rich, because Arsenal’s system allows admission; a Bradford supporter can probably go to every match. A Leicester City supporter like me unfortunately cannot attend due to distance. In the governance Act that the hon. Gentleman proposes, will supporters’ clubs have input into admission fees?

[Steve Rotheram]

The dichotomy is that in some of the foreign models where football supporters are represented on boards, match ticket prices are much lower than in the premier league. Anyone who goes to Europe—as we will do this year, although on a much lesser basis than in previous seasons—will find out when they buy tickets that European games are always much cheaper than their equivalents in the premier league. One does not always go with the other. Football supporter representation at least gives that concern a voice.

It is more easily said than done. In the current political and economic climate, many difficulties and setbacks lie ahead. Any lack of will or any outright resistance by the parties involved—the Government, the governing authorities and the premiership clubs—will make the task more challenging. In its 2009 report, the all-party parliamentary group on football recommended a straightforward, one-size-fits-all solution: an elected supporters’ representative drawn from the relevant supporters’ trust should sit on the board of all 92 football league and premier league clubs. The group also suggested that a requirement to involve supporters should be a prerequisite for future takeovers—that is interesting to a few of us here—and that the football regulatory authority can evaluate that as part of the reformed “fit and proper person” test.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I am a Portsmouth fan, so I welcome the momentum behind football reform, but I would like to introduce a note of caution. I support fan ownership, but we might be asking fans who are already paying clubs large amounts of their disposable income to have a stake in those clubs that is not genuinely meaningful. A Portsmouth fan might want a veto on a new owner or the sell-off of land. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about focusing on governance structures, and I hope that we do not miss some quick wins on that front by focusing solely on ownership.

[Steve Rotheram]

What happened to Portsmouth is an absolute disgrace. Football supporters on the relevant boards might at least have been able to inform other Portsmouth supporters what was going on. Apparently, one owner did not even know that he was no longer the owner after the club was sold. That is an absolute disgrace to football governance, which is why something needs to happen and the Government need to take some control.

The football regulatory authority is a good starting point, but it makes no provision for supporters seeking outright control or ownership or those locking horns with the behemoths of the game. We need to go further and faster. Given all that, and in the absence of any overarching, fully independent body to propel matters forward, I urge the all-party group on football to undertake a fresh and specific inquiry into the subject of this debate, with the aim of developing a spectrum of practical solutions and models allowing for a range of supporter involvement options.

I have spoken at length, because I have taken many interventions. I thank everyone for their patience, but I ask to be indulged for a minute or so longer. As we have heard in Members’ passionate interventions, football is not just our national sport and a source of national pride—even for the Scottish Members here today, who will remember that 97th-minute winner. At one end, football is a multi-billion-pound industry; at the other, it is a local business offering local employment opportunities. It cuts across age, class and geographical boundaries, and is one of the few unifying activities in our society. Every one of us here today, irrespective of the demographic profile of their constituency, represents significant numbers of football supporters.

For some time now, the beautiful game at its highest level has stood in danger of being blighted by controversy, debt, bitterness and poor performance, because it is structurally and organisationally out of kilter with modern Britain and the expectations and aspirations of our 21st-century democracy. Many football fans feel disillusioned and disfranchised by this great British institution. Let us put that right by doing all that we can as enlightened and socially responsible politicians to help to return football to the very people in our heartlands who made it so great.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed any further, I should say that a number of people have indicated that they wish to speak. If colleagues are as brief as possible, we will get more people in.

09:59

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on enticing a bigger attendance than even the antics of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. He is greatly to be congratulated. I suspect that I speak for virtually everyone here when I say that I share the sentiments in his final peroration about his passion for the game. I am also a keen and lifelong football fan, having followed the fortunes of Bury. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is here; he will point out, as I suspect will many hon. Members, that it is the only Greater Manchester football club to be located in a Conservative constituency, although we will hopefully work on that in time.

I have been the vice-chairman of the all-party group on football, and I played a role in the debates and reports of 2003 and 2009, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton referred, on the governance and finance of the game. We have long argued that football as a whole is far too loosely regulated.

English football has undergone a dramatic transformation in the 18 years since the creation of the premiership, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley)—perhaps I should say the hon. Member for Burslem and Stoke—pointed out in her intervention. There is now an unprecedented and in many ways unbridgeable gulf between the top clubs and the rest, partly as a result of lax governance and the absence of effective regulation. The fact is that English football is a multi-billion pound global branding industry, with a hugely complex domestic structure and turf wars between the Football Association, the Football League and the premier league. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton pointed out, frankly, such a situation works only to the interest of the very largest premier league clubs.

The new coalition Government have sought to introduce more co-operative types of club ownership, for example, by the fans. However, in reality, that will be virtually impossible to impose without ripping up company law and effectively nationalising privately owned businesses.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Field]

If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I will not. I know others want to contribute, so I shall speak for only a few moments.

Those people who push a somewhat idealistic view are a little misguided. In citing both Barcelona and Real Madrid as model clubs, the Minister made the important point that the massive advantage those two Spanish clubs have over any of their potential competitors in their home country is that they can sell their television rights in that market individually rather than collectively, as happens with the premiership. Before the world is too much older, I fear that there may be a big push to do something similar in this country—if not from the big four then from a big seven or eight that might emerge. That should be resisted at all costs.

I should also point out that the role of the president of a club such as Barcelona is similar to that of an owner in the UK—one must not get confused by the terminology. In Spain, a club that narrowly came fifth in its league, Real Mallorca, has been disbarred from European competition this year because of the magnitude of its debts. That is obviously a debate that will particularly affect Liverpool and Manchester United in their current state.

Some clubs do flourish under co-operative ownership; for example, Exeter City briefly dropped out of the league and have come back much stronger. However, co-operative ownership has also led to some big problems. Stockport County is a good example of a club that has ended up in administration. It has only just come out of administration after a damaging period in its history, which occurred after following that particular model. Forcing a single one-size-fits-all ownership model on all clubs is wrong. I am sure that some clubs would gain from co-operative ownership models, but others could fail. One ownership model will not necessarily fit the demands of every single football club. The reality is that vast majority of clubs are in one form or another owned by fans. Sometimes that might involve individuals—men and women—pumping millions of pounds into their team. They might get very little credit or support from the supporters of a club for doing so.

I would like to mention a couple of things that are happening outside the premiership, because much of the debate has inevitably focused on the big four—or at least the big 20—within the premiership. The attendance of Football League games last year exceeded 17 million, and the league clubs’ community teams worked locally with more than 1.5 million people. I have had a chance to see one or two of those projects over the years and, most recently, I have watched what has been happening with Crystal Palace. That club has been in great financial difficulties, but it has done a tremendous amount of work with its academy and has ensured that educational standards have remained tremendously high for young players, some of whom are breaking into the first team already. Such clubs are very much at the heart of their communities, and I think that many hon. Members in this Chamber who are here to represent football clubs will share the community values referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton.

The reality is that there are quite effective cost controls in league two—the fourth tier of the English professional game—because clubs cannot spend more than 60% of their turnover on players’ wages. That measure has been extremely effective and I hope that it is rolled out to other parts of our professional game. There is no doubt that the championship—the second tier of football—is massively financially overstretched because of the huge incentive of going into the premiership. Parachute payments have been extended from two to four years for clubs that come out of it—in other words, provided that a club spends one year in every five in the premiership, the road seems to be paved with gold. However, all sorts of problems arise as a result of that.

We need to make it absolutely clear—I hope the Minister will do so—that it is important to pay immediate attention to proper cost controls within our national game. If we can find a way forward in that regard, it will allow our clubs to focus on what they do best in their communities. We need to ensure that they have proper community facilities and are engaged in youth development at academy level and within their local vicinity. The funds required for that crucial work, which is very much part of the big society, can be obtained only through having proper cost controls within our game. There is a vicious cycle that must be broken at the earliest opportunity.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. It is my intention to call the Front Benchers at 10.45 am. I call Barbara Keeley.

10:14

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate; he spoke very well. I am not speaking as a football fan, but am here to represent fans. I have received more than 50 notes from constituents who are supporters of Manchester United. I am sure many hon. Members in this Chamber have also received such correspondence—those from Salford and further afield.

[Steve Rotheram]

Much further afield.

[Barbara Keeley]

And those from much further afield. The constituents who have contacted me are also members of the Manchester United Supporters Trust. They have become disillusioned with how their club is being run and are concerned about the state of the national game. They think that football must start to be regulated properly and have its governance reformed.

Many Manchester United supporters in my constituency are greatly concerned that their club is now the most heavily indebted club in the world, after a hostile and highly leveraged takeover by the Glazer family in 2005. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) touched on the debt situation of that club. Prior to the takeover, the club had no debt at all. It now services debts in excess of £750 million. Although the club is still reporting a healthy operating profit, the money is not necessarily going into improving the club; it is being spent just on servicing the debt. The 2009 report by the all-party group on football points out that supporters paying off the debt in such situations do not even have a tangible influence over the direction of the club. As with Portsmouth’s situation, the longer-term future of the club is no longer assured.

That level of debt and uncertainty has a clear impact on supporters. Many feel that the decisions made by controlling interests in the club in the boardroom do not demonstrate long-term commitment to the club and its supporters. That is why dissatisfaction sometimes breaks out and there is a sea of green and gold instead of red at big matches at Wembley. My constituents rightly feel it is time for dedicated football fans to be given some sort of stake in the clubs that they and their families have helped to build over many years.

Football clubs are an integral part of the community, and their ownership and financial management should not just be dealt with through company law. Indeed, I remember when Manchester United behaved as if it was part of the local community in Trafford, where the club is based. When I was a Trafford councillor, a young David Beckham came to open a new centre for young people leaving care. Members of the team made visits to schools to read to children during reading weeks and the players were much more involved in the community that was home to their club. That changed and the players started to be seen more as a corporate resource. Prices for tickets and kit increased dramatically and players’ salaries soared. It has become much harder to see clubs such as Manchester United as part of our local community.

There should be stronger regulation to ensure that those owning and running football clubs understand their wider responsibilities to the community. Football clubs should not be run on the basis of massive debt, which can threaten the stability of both individual clubs and the health of the game as a whole. At the moment, the game has clear laws enforced by referees and assistants on the field. However, off the field, it is like trying to play a game with hardly any pitch markings, unclear laws and no referees. That is why, off the field, various forms of financial crisis are appearing all over the place—from Cardiff City to King’s Lynn, from Chester City to Southend, and from Manchester United and Liverpool to Portsmouth. We could say that governance in the football industry is no better than the governance of the banking industry over recent years.

There is plenty of legislation on football, but it is directed at the fans—for example, on all-seater stadiums, football banning orders and controls on drinking in sight of the pitch. What about some legislation to constrain what goes on in the boardroom? Legal models from elsewhere could be adapted to work in England and Wales. We have heard about examples from Germany, but there are also examples in France, the United States and Canada. Spain already has a national sports law that establishes a statutory national sports council and a special company status of sporting limited company. That law is not perfect—I understand that the Spanish Parliament is considering reforming it—but it does give a clear legal context for professional and amateur sport and recognises the unique characteristics of professional sports clubs. Will the Minister say whether he has considered or intends to consider other models of governance for professional sports clubs?

[Hugh Robertson]

Does the hon. Lady want me to respond now?

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister can do so when he is summing up, given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak.

It may also be time to consider the tax regime that gave financial incentives to leverage buy-outs, such as the takeover of Manchester United by the Glazers, and whether such tax breaks are any longer appropriate.

Supporters and fans need the Government to take action to improve the governance of football in this country. The Sports Minister made commitments to do that, but more recently he seems to have softened those commitments, saying:

“We’ll give football the chance to sort itself out first by seeing how they plan to reform over the summer, and if it doesn’t work then the Government will step in. We need to take a serious look at reforming the governance and structure of football in this country.”

Will the Minister tell us today what plans the Government have after the summer to step in and take action, and when does he propose to start?

On fans owning their clubs wholly or in part, I believe that ordinary company law is insufficient because football clubs are not ordinary companies, which is shown by the fact that they are called clubs. That is how most of them started: they were clubs that were rooted in their local communities, not profit-making entities. They trade on the name, history and traditions of the city and the community they come from. They are unlike other businesses and should be treated as such. Football clubs are unique, and their sole purpose should not be to make profit for one individual or company at the expense of their fans and the wider community.

I will finish by saying that one never hears of anyone wanting to have their ashes scattered on the car park of their local supermarket or business park after they die. However, fans do want their ashes to be scattered in their football clubs. That is why football clubs are different.

10:21

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this important debate. I agree with many of the sentiments that he expressed and with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on tax incentives to encourage more democracy in football clubs. Football is close to my heart. I am proud to have a good and strong club in Harlow, and regularly meet its owner to discuss its plans; it is good to see the club back on track after years of difficulties. The new management team have some exciting plans, which I am sure will mean a great season.

I am a community Conservative, which is why I support moves for co-operative ownership of football clubs and other football institutions. I believe that we must have a democratic revolution that will give fans a greater say in the running of their local clubs. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned, the Conservative pledge was to reform football governance arrangements so that co-operative ownership models could be established by supporters as part of a wider package of reform of football finance and governance. To adapt what Abraham Lincoln famously said of democracy, I hope that our Government will give football clubs a new birth of freedom, so that football of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

However, the problem is not only with local clubs ignoring their fans. In my view, the real obstacle is the failed managers, failed contracts and the failed payouts—some say that it is up to £50 million or £60 million—of the Football Association itself. Some Members will have read my early-day motion 329, tabled before the recess, which called for the FA board to resign following the England World cup debacle. I said that that was the time for a democratic revolution, led by the fans, to transform football governance in our country.

The FA board is run like a Byzantine court, with decisions being made like puffs of white smoke appearing from the Vatican rooftops. The FA enjoys a virtual monopoly over the sport. It is a semi-public body and its activities are of great public concern, so the public must have some means of redress. Currently, its board is not democratically accountable to fans, and it is not even bureaucratically accountable to any outside body. That is why I tabled early-day motion 374, which calls for a complete overhaul of the way the FA is run so that the organisation can become truly accountable to England fans. There must be a form of voting rights that would give England supporters the opportunity to have their say on who should be in charge at the FA. If the FA board can be booted out by the fans, it will start to sit up and listen.

My solution would be the introduction of a paid subscription system—perhaps £50 a year—whereby England fans could exercise voting rights in the FA. It would be like a co-operative shareholding, but limited to one vote for each person. It would be in the national interest for England fans to be able to vote for the FA board and chairman and to fire them if they did a bad job. Fans could vote for the board and chairman for a three or four-year term. They would also have the right to decide the level of spending on grass-roots and community football, and to vote on the annual budget report.

I wholeheartedly support our coalition agreement, which refers to reforming football governance and institutions so that co-operative ownership models can be established by supporters. My plea is that the FA should be included in those reforms and freed from the iron grip of the premier league. As a Conservative, my hope is that the FA would adopt those reforms voluntarily. Just as the people of this country elect the Government, so the fans should have some say in the state of our national game. I want all England fans to be able to say genuinely that we are all in this together, and for that to be backed up by real community power. Enough is enough: if England are to win a major tournament, we cannot go on as we are. If the FA does not reform itself, I urge the Minister to develop a framework for serious reform.

10:25

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for securing the debate—he has been in the House only since May but he is already making a major impact, both here and in his constituency. I declare an interest as a lifelong member and supporter of Liverpool FC. Ever since my father first took me to the Kop at age seven, I have been lucky enough to be a supporter of the most successful club in Britain, and the one with the greatest fans—there, I have started my comments with an uncontroversial point.

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the recommendations in the report and the suggestions that he has made today are the right way forward to ensure that no further clubs fall into the same position as Manchester United and Liverpool, but I do not think that they will address our problems with those clubs. When one looks at the finances of both clubs, it is hard to see how they will reverse their terminal decline and move forward in a positive way. That is because the politicians and the football authorities have badly let down the fans by accepting that football is nothing more than a business.

I remember having a discussion with someone from the premier league who said, “It’s just like Tesco; it’s a business.” I replied that there was a massive difference between a football club and a supermarket. If I do not like the product or the price in Tesco, I can go to Asda, but it is highly unlikely that I, as a Liverpool fan, would go to watch Everton if I did not like the product or the price. It is unlikely that a Manchester United supporter would go to watch Manchester City—that is not going to happen. There is a massive difference, and we must take that into account when looking forward at how to deal with the problems.

[Mr George Howarth]

My hon. Friend, as a Member for St Helens, should know that there is an alternative club available: Prescot Cables.

[Mr Watts]

I know that that club has an illustrious past. I remember that a prominent member of the Liverpool squad—Tony Hateley—signed for Prescot Cables in later life, and he did well.

We need to think about how we can move on. We have let the fans down badly by allowing people such as Glazer, Gillett and Hicks to take over our clubs, frankly, with no money. They borrow money from elsewhere before taking over a club and treating it like a cash cow. When Glazer wants some money for his other businesses, he goes along and takes the money out of the club. In the case of Hicks and Gillett, they bought the club to sell 12 months or two years later for twice the price they paid, without having put anything into it. We cannot accept the current situation or trust the football authorities any further. We need an independent regulator who will put the fans first and take into account the vested interest that already exists in the premier league.

I agree with the comments made the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on the need to reform tax legislation, and with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on company law. We will address the problem only if we make special provision for football and take into account the fact that it is not just a business, but something that is important to people. As footballs fans, we might be politicians or take a great interest in politics, but the one thing that normally overrules that—I see it all the time—is people taking as much interest in their football team as they do in politics. For ordinary people, it is a way of life, but we have already priced millions of fans out of the game.

I support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, and hope that Ministers will listen to them and take them on board. We need to ensure that no other clubs fall as Manchester United and Liverpool have fallen, but also to look carefully at their situation. We need to see what we can do to get rid of those three individuals and to ensure that people who have the best interests of the club and the community at heart take over the clubs.

10:30

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I shall be brief because I have a bit of a cold.

I am probably in a unique position. When I was seeking to stand for Parliament, and my party was interviewing candidates, one question was a catch-all about any indiscretions I might want to describe. My reply was, “Actually, I don’t like football.” I am here not because of that but because many of my constituents are passionate about football. It is an essential part of the fabric of the English character. I am here not only because many of my constituents support national football teams, but because of the work of the Bedford Eagles Supporters Trust, which is a community organisation supporting football. It has worked through the generations to support our team, even when we were sometimes competing against the likes of Arsenal, Everton and Newcastle in the FA cup—relatively successfully. Bedford Town is not one of the big teams, but it is a home for people who believe passionately in football. No more vivid illustration of the character of supporters is drawn than when, as many hon. Members have mentioned, clubs are in trouble—and the supporters come to their rescue. Why do they not have a voice in the good times as well?

I am here because of the supporters’ work and because I am passionate about the concept of the big society. The Government have a huge opportunity to make real the concept of the big society, and to introduce plans about what they will do to support organisations such as the Bedford Eagles Supporters Trust in the case of community teams and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, the supporters of large teams, to make real and tangible to the people of this country what is meant by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) called community conservatism. We can all agree with that. We do not want to hear vague recommendations about trying to work with people or trying to get support. We want real action from the Government to support the people who, every day and every week, in their hearts, believe in the clubs they support and represent.

10:33

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Robertson, for the opportunity to speak in this important, significant and—judging by the number of hon. Members here and the number of people in the Gallery—popular debate. I, too, have had e-mails from members of the Manchester United Supporters Trust. I am sure that nearly everyone has. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), is present, but I suspect that she might have had the most of all.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. As he said, his constituency is home to two professional clubs, which have had problems at various times over governance, ownership, fan involvement and stadiums. My constituency does not have any professional clubs—Celtic and Hamilton are just outside the boundaries—although it is home to the junior clubs of Rutherglen Glencairn, Cambuslang Rangers and Blantyre Victoria.

I wish to declare an interest, as a Co-operative Member of Parliament: Supporters Direct was born out of the co-operative movement, and the Co-operative party was very involved. As the founding chair of the Fulham Supporters Trust, I would like to speak from the perspective of being involved with, establishing and running a supporters’ trust. I was involved in that long before I had any pretensions to enter elected politics.

The Fulham Supporters Trust was born from a specific and ultimately successful campaign about a football stadium. The people running Fulham football club deigned to believe that the future of the club would be better served by moving away from our traditional community and catchment area to a new ground, for the financial benefits that they prescribed would follow. Such circumstances are typical, and many trusts have come into being in response to a campaign. The issues arise when people running clubs make a mess of things: of the finances, of the issues around the stadium or of how they communicate with and involve supporters.

Such a situation shows where the importance of supporters’ trusts lies and what we need to make clear in discussion. Often, club ownership, which is so disparate in character, is not the issue. However, the people below the level of ownership—those who are in charge of running clubs—often take the attitude that football supporters and fans have no business in being interested in or involved with, or in taking a view on, what is happening in the running of their club. Yet we have seen from examples, to which hon. Members have alluded, that they can in fact do a far better job than some of the paid professionals. Supporters have had to ride to the rescue on far too many occasions.

One of the most important aspects to be dealt with is the involvement of trusts other than at a time of crisis—that is, not just when rescuing a situation because no one else is prepared to take up the challenge. The role of Supporters Direct is therefore crucial. For those of us involved in establishing and running trusts, Supporters Direct has been a superb resource—an efficient and effective organisation run, as far as I can tell, on very little money. It has done a great job of providing guidance and advice to supporters’ trusts. I have asked questions of the Minister and we corresponded on the issue early on in the Parliament. I hope that since our exchange he has had the opportunity to meet Supporters Direct and to understand its work. I hope that he will refer to that in his closing remarks.

As other Members have mentioned—I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) in particular—the coalition Government have said a lot about mutualism, the big society and such issues. It would be great if we could see a concrete example of that sometimes rather difficult-to-grasp concept in how supporters are involved in their clubs—not just football clubs, but rugby league clubs and other sports that are starting to develop the trust model.

My main point is that supporters are often underestimated and quite often dismissed. Too often, the attitude of clubs is to see supporters as an irritant. If the clubs expended as much energy and time in involving supporters and their organisations as they do, in some cases, denigrating them, that would be a much better use of time and energy. I hope that that message comes out of today’s debate. It is not about what some people have alluded to as imposing a model on all clubs and all situations. It is about involvement and awareness, which can help the way in which clubs are run. That is why I commend the direction in which Arsenal has developed: a progressive trust that might allow early involvement, to prevent some of those problems that would need trusts and fans’ organisations to ride to the rescue. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of the issues that have been raised and give assurances about how Supporters Direct will exist in future.

10:39

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. We have all enjoyed having lots of football-related e-mails, which makes a pleasant change from some of the casework that is sent to us.

I will be brief because I am conscious that a lot of other people want to speak. Many Members have made excellent points, but I want to touch briefly on three issues. The priority has to be to tighten up the “fit and proper” test. As we have seen with Manchester United, Liverpool, Portsmouth, some of the previous owners at my local club, Swindon Town, and huge swathes of non-league football clubs, unsuitable individuals rip out the heart of the community and decimate something that is so important to many people.

I fully support the need for fan representation on clubs. I am interested in the idea of fan representation being built into any future takeover. Working with the Swindon Town supporters’ trust in previous years, I pushed hard to get fans included for two reasons: first, so that the club would be open and transparent, and, secondly, because surely it makes commercial sense and is a good thing for football clubs to be connected to their supporters—their customers, the people who are digging deep to fund ever-growing transfer fees. Actually, at non-league level, Swindon Supermarine, the other club in Swindon, faced dropping down two divisions this season unless it found £40,000. The fans got together—many hands make light work—and I am delighted that the club is still in the same division and competing well.

My final point, which I shall make quickly, is that there must be reality checks in the system. As was mentioned earlier, not all individuals who invest in clubs are terrible people. A good example was Jack Walker at Blackburn Rovers. Not only did he invest in the club that he supported from his youth—my mother remembers standing next to him on the terraces—but the trust is still putting some £3 million into protecting the club. That is an example of looking after fans in the community, and is a bit of a reality check. For all the bad individuals, there are many good individuals—it is a matter of getting the right balance.

10:41

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I am deliberately wearing a Merthyr rugby club tie this morning, and I have come to talk about Wales, women and football.

I am wearing the tie because I am a supporter of the soccer club. That sounds bizarre, and it is bizarre, in the sense that Merthyr is a particular place. It has always had an interest in both games, both of which flourish in the town. It is odd, perhaps, to see that in a Welsh valley town. Merthyr soccer club is 100 years old, and is now a trust. It has struggled, kicking and screaming, to get to that position, and it needs assistance. This is not just about Liverpool, Arsenal, London or England. It is about something bigger than that. It is about the game of football, which is also about health and community. It is not about potentates, oligarchs and bandits of various descriptions from around the world manipulating the UK tax regime to make profit. That is not really what it is about. Football has a power beyond that, and we need to get a regulatory framework in place at the top of the game because the money-making process at the top, which we all know is now the real power of sport, perverts and distorts the whole of a process that could be something much greater than that.

Let us be clear on the business of sharing facilities. If we democratise the process a little and speak to the people who are really interested in the game of football, and to those who actually play it, we find that what they really want is for the game to flourish, not for it to be perverted by some process. One of my local pubs has now formed its own team. People are trying to play football—they want to do it—but they are not being helped to do so.

When Merthyr soccer club was in private ownership, it received some television money. They had one game in the FA cup, because they play in the English pyramid—they do not play in the Welsh league. I believe they lost 1-0 to Walsall. Sky was bumping gums about Merthyr Tydfil a lot yesterday. It did one thing for Merthyr: it provided that one game. In one night, a little bit of Sky TV money provided two years’ revenue. Where did the money go? I have no idea. It went into some financial soup that the owner of the club was involved with at the time. There was no transparency.

The one word that we need to hang on to in all of this is “transparency”. We need a process in which people can see what is happening in the game. They will then understand it, and they will exert pressure. A social enterprise model would be the right one for many places. It would build the community, and clubs would run academies if we allowed them to—they have a lot to say about education—and run them properly. We know all those things, so that model is crucial.

I am afraid that, yes, television money has to be part of the discussion. The situation is difficult and unfortunate, but television money is perverting the process—that and the tax regime.

I ask the Minister to deal with those three things: television, tax and transparency. Obviously, everyone is waiting for him to say what he will do. Was he serious when he referred during the summer to drinking in the last chance saloon? I would like to know what plans the clubs have come up with for reforming themselves. If they do not do that, my money is on him as the man to do it for them.

10:44

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this debate, and on the large turnout of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. It is important that football authorities get the message that we will not go away. Some people in the football authorities think that politicians should have no truck with the running of football, and I believe they were rather pleased when there was a change of Government. Perhaps they are not now—we will hear what the Minister has to say shortly.

On the momentum of what the Labour Government were trying to achieve on governance issues, there is always a problem for a Government in their relationship with sport. It is the Government’s role not to run sport but to create the circumstances in which sport flourishes. Football is our national game. Some progress has been made, but not enough and not fast enough.

Supporters’ trusts are important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that it was a Labour Government who introduced them and, indeed, Supporters Direct. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on funding for Supporters Direct. Richard Caborn, who was then the Sports Minister, entered into an arrangement with the premier league to look at the Football Foundation and new ways of funding Supporters Direct. I hope the Minister can give us some comfort about that funding, because it is important that Supporters Direct continue its work not only in football but in other sports.

So the debate is about momentum. It is about ensuring that we keep the pressure on football authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), now the shadow Secretary of State for Health, wrote, as Secretary of State for Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to the premier league, the Football Association and the Football League about the very issues that we have been discussing today—the “fit and proper person” test, transparency, and clubs looking to their communities and fans for support—but also about the different models on offer. It is right that we do not have a one-size-fits-all model; there are different models, and they should be developed.

We have been told that the Government should not get involved because the international federations would not like it—that UEFA and FIFA take exception to Governments trying to get involved in the running of football. Up to a point, that is true, but I know from discussions I had with FIFA and UEFA that they were concerned about the sustainability of debt in the English game, and that is why it was important that we put pressure on the football authorities to respond.

The FA has a tremendous role to play. Obviously, I am saddened by the demise of Lord Triesman in the role of independent chairman and by the resignation of Ian Watmore as chief executive. The FA has a key role to play, and how it replaces Lord Triesman will be important. The Minister might want to develop that theme. I am surprised at the time that it will take, given what needs to happen.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) spoke about turf wars. The FA has a key role in sorting them out, and in ensuring that, for the good of the game and our communities, supporters’ trust models can develop and we can look at other ways of doing things.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned supporters’ trusts. Will he congratulate the Tranmere Rovers supporters close to my constituency who ingeniously came up with the Les Aid fund to aid the manager, Les Parry, in developing the squad? The supporters came up with great fund-raising models and are able this season to inject cash into the club and get it through its league one campaign.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I am happy to do that, and to congratulate all supporters’ trusts on the innovative models they have come up with for their own clubs. There are some tremendous examples of supporters’ trusts working with local communities.

Clearly, financing the game is a key factor, and people have spoken about the disparity between the premier and the lower leagues. I was heartened by the conference league’s changing its rules to ensure that clubs have transparency and the right approach. The Football League is now going in the right direction with the league two regime. We cannot say that there has been no progress. There certainly has been progress, and we have seen some real changes in the premier league and Football League. We are happy that they have taken place, but change needs to continue and to happen more.

It is also important that the Government do what they can to support clubs when they are in trouble. The Revenue’s relationships with football clubs needs to be looked at. I understand that Sheffield Wednesday may have a problem at the moment, so the Minister might want to consider that.

On the Labour party’s election manifesto, we were prepared to legislate, because we had tried to get the authorities on board but that approach was not working fast enough or quickly enough. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

During the election, both major parties promised to tackle the issues of debt, better regulation, transparency and supporter ownership. What practical steps does the shadow Minister suggest that the Minister take to make those things a reality?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

A starting point would be to follow through with the seven questions put to the football authorities. People have talked about the “fit and proper person” test, but there are three tests and those need to be reduced to a single one on transparency. My hon. Friend made a good suggestion about the all-party group’s continuing to consider this matter, because that will help the Minister. One frustrating thing about being Minister for Sport—the best job in Government—is the amount of time that dealing with football takes. It is helpful for the all-party group to be involved and to continue the discussion on the issues raised this morning.

I will stop at that point, because right hon. and hon. Members want to hear what the Minister has to say.

10:51

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Before I start, Mr Robertson, may I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) in this and so many other areas across the sports spectrum? This is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so, because questions were not asked directly during the first round of Culture, Media and Sport questions. The hon. Gentleman had a good innings as Minister for Sport, and many officials in my Department rate him highly. I thank him for his contribution.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this debate. He reiterated, as he did in his maiden speech, his views about the current ownership of the club that he supports—Liverpool—and his desire for supporters to have a greater role in running football clubs. The twin aims of greater supporter involvement in running football clubs and the reform of football governance are shared across the political spectrum and are, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said, part of the coalition agreement. However, I have to tell him that, although the issue is widely agreed in this place, it is not entirely shared in the wider football family. There is a battle to be fought to convince the football family of the merits of this case.

I will deal in a moment with various points raised by hon. Members, but before we get into that, it might help if I say that developments at Arsenal football club have been some of the most encouraging in recent months. I intend to meet that club urgently to examine precisely how we can encourage other football clubs to put in place a similar scheme. If one thing that anybody has said to me or that I have read about this matter has stood out in recent months, it is a quote from Arsenal’s chief executive—an enlightened, able individual—who said:

“I think we are moving into a post-materialistic world.”

That is an interesting phrase, which sums up my approach to football. People who think that football can be run solely and completely as a business have got it wrong. Of course there are business elements in football—it has to be run properly; nobody in this Chamber would deny that—but it is a business with a social conscience. Football is an important part of the lives of the many millions of fans who turn up to watch and play the game, or who follow it casually in the newspapers or on television. Everybody involved in the game ignores that at their peril.

[Mr Watts]

May I caution the Minister against seeing a solution for the rest of football in the example of Arsenal? The owners of Arsenal want to protect the club from the sort of people who have taken over our club, and Manchester United. It is not a typical example and we need to be cautious about that.

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely. Here we get into the problem with the process. It is pointless for me to pretend that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. If there were, I am sure that it would have been implemented in the past few years.

The Spanish model has been cited at length this morning, but, as has been said correctly, two clubs sit at the top of La Liga and they have huge financial resources because they negotiate their own television rights. Hon. Members asked about Spanish sports law. I asked about that a month ago and was told that there were so many faulty aspects to it that the Spanish are now trying to re-regulate. The Spanish model is not always a great example, although some aspects of it might be relevant. We are not starting from the same point as many of the Spanish clubs.

As a young Army officer in the middle of the siege of Sarajevo, I remember saying, “I wish this was different, because this is a disaster.” Someone replied, “You can’t deal with a situation you wish you had. You have to deal with the one that’s in front of you.” That is the problem.

[Mr George Howarth]

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) mentioned the difficulties in dealing with privately owned clubs, particularly at premiership level. The one negotiating chip is the ownership of the fixtures list, with all its consequences in relation to television rights. Is the Minister prepared to consider that?

[Hugh Robertson]

To be honest with the right hon. Gentleman, whom I know well, I am prepared to consider any sensible suggestion that will move this discussion on. What he has mentioned is part of a much wider debate that many sports are having about betting rights and image protection. There are considerable problems with betting rights, because if a levy were taken from the bookmakers they would simply move offshore. Many Opposition Members who represent constituencies where bookmaking is a big thing would notice that. The shadow Minister will have scars on his back from that debate.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the point about one size not fitting all. Will the Minister return to a point made by a number of hon. Members about the future of Supporters Direct, which has surely been the key to capacity building for supporters’ trusts, enabling them to find the right business model? The co-operative and mutual business model has been successful, and not just in football.

[Hugh Robertson]

I am happy to deal with that point, which relates to points made by the hon. Member for Bradford South. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that the approach taken on either the wider governance agenda or the funding of Supporters Direct is no different from the position that the hon. Gentleman was negotiating at the end of his time in office.

The strength of this morning’s debate lies in its representing the feeling throughout the House that something needs to be done. It is useful because it allows me to go back to the football authorities, put pressure on them and tell them that we had a Westminster Hall debate that was better attended even than those on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This debate is a pretty good weather vane, showing the strength of feeling on this issue. I am determined to make progress and to push ahead with both the wider reform agenda and football supporters’ involvement.

It all comes back to the issue affecting every Member of Parliament in their constituency surgeries: there is a moment when they face somebody and ask, “What exactly do you want me to do about this?” There are a number of possible outcomes; some might work well for one club, but not for another. Many suggestions were made by hon. Members today and we might follow up on the issue of a tax concession, but no hon. Member in this Chamber will need reminding about the state of the nation’s finances. Currently, six demands for taxation breaks for sport are sitting on my desk, including subs for junior sports clubs—[Interruption.]

[Mr Sutcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Hugh Robertson]

The shadow Minister is nodding; he has been through all this. Other demands include corporation tax exemptions for sports governing bodies, so that they can invest in the grass roots; tax breaks to entice international federations back to London, so we can increase our influence; and a levy on the betting tax—and so it goes on. I am determined to ensure that the money that we have as a Government is targeted on getting more people, particularly young people, playing sport. That remains my overriding priority. However, I will consider the demands that have been made.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am lucky that Huddersfield Town, the football club that I support, which is on the edge of my constituency, is owned by a local businessman who is a lifelong fan. Social conscience is important. Last season’s shirt sponsor for Huddersfield Town was the Yorkshire Air Ambulance charity. More than £100,000 was raised for that charity and for an academy. However, not all football clubs are so lucky; we have heard about Liverpool, Manchester United and others.

Please will the Minister push forward on considering how the Government can intervene? I do not have total confidence in football’s governing bodies at the moment. There are issues to do with fit and proper persons and with transparency. The manager of Manchester United cannot even be made to fulfil his media obligations. Please continue pushing forward, to see how we can intervene and ensure that all clubs can have confidence that they are being run as well as Huddersfield Town is.

[Hugh Robertson]

The trouble with debates such as this is that they quickly turn into a basket of issues. We have not even touched on the 2018 bid, which I am sure all hon. Members will support and is the Government’s top priority.

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for instigating the debate and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in it. The governance reform agenda and how we secure greater involvement for supporters are both issues that I am—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order.

Unscrupulous Landlords

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

As the terraces empty from the previous debate, I want to make a few comments about unscrupulous landlords in the private rented sector. As a Portsmouth football club fan, I wish I had been present for the previous debate because I would have had something to say.

I apologise for my croaky voice—I am full of cold—but to set the scene, I shall read two quotes that clearly detail the Government’s thinking. The first is from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who said as recently as June:

“With the vast majority of England’s three million private tenants happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords.”

The second quote is even more recent, and was placed on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government in August:

“In the past, over-regulation drove landlords out of the rented market. We don’t want to introduce any measures which would form a barrier to potential landlords considering renting out their properties.”

Those two quotes are unequivocal, and we conclude that the Government do not see a need for further protection for tenants or for the regulation of unscrupulous landlords, and that they believe the current arrangements strike the right balance, not least because of the fear of red tape. That is in contrast with the previous Government’s views. At their departure, they had plans for a new national register of landlords, regulation of letting and management agents, and compulsory written tenancy agreements. The current Government’s status quo position is unfortunate, and Shelter today announced a new investigation into rogue landlords, which aims to raise the profile of the private rented sector as a political issue.

Let us consider one basic statistic from Shelter. Nearly 1 million people throughout the UK have fallen victim to a scam involving a landlord or a rented property in the past three years, so on average, every MP will have just under 1,500 constituents who have been the victim of landlord scams. The purpose of this short debate is to help to raise awareness, to praise Shelter’s campaign, to raise some concerns, and to ask the Government some questions. We want the Government to recognise the problem of rogue landlord activity in the private rented sector, and to take action because rogue landlords cause enormous damage to the lives of often vulnerable tenants, which may spread to the wider neighbourhood, resulting in run-down properties blighting communities.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. My constituents include 165 leaseholders of the Peverel Group, which is a massive freehold landlord with 500 estates throughout the country. At a recent tribunal, they managed to claw their way to overturning a scam whereby leaseholders, when paying their service charge, find that one third of it is an odd cash-back arrangement between the insurer and the freeholder. There are many loopholes in the law, and I hope that he will press the Minister to change his mind and to take a more proactive stance today.

[Jon Cruddas]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I want to raise that precise matter. I appreciate and respect his experience.

The essential points that I want to make include the following. Most private landlords are responsible and honest in how they deal with their tenants. That is beyond dispute, but those who are not bring down the reputation of the whole sector. The Government must accept that Shelter’s investigation has uncovered significant problems with rogue landlords that require action. Many aspects of existing law are not properly enforced by local authorities. They often do not treat this as a matter of priority or do not have a properly resourced enforcement team available.

Let us consider some basic statistics from Shelter. There are just over 3 million private rented households, representing 14.2% of all households. In that sector, 1.3 million tenants—approximately 40%—are in receipt of housing benefit. The sector has surged in popularity in recent years, with the percentage of households renting privately increasing by 40% since 2001. If that rate of increase continues, there will be more private renters than social renters within the next five years.

Some 80% of private renters are aged under 55; almost one third are aged 25 to 34; 58% of 16 to 24-year-olds are private renters, and 59% of private renters expect to buy in future, compared with 27% of social renters. However, compared with two years ago, private renters expect to rent for longer before being in a position to buy their own home. Vulnerable households who rent their accommodation privately are more likely to live in non-decent homes compared with social tenants—the averages being 51% and 26% respectively.

MPs regularly deal with problems associated with unscrupulous landlords, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) touched on this. They include harassing tenants or throwing them out of their homes without notice, effectively making them homeless; failing to carry out essential maintenance, leading to unhealthy or unsafe conditions; deliberately ignoring the legal requirement to protect tenants’ deposits using an approved scheme, and then unfairly withholding the deposit at the end of the tenancy; and driving tenants into arrears by adding exorbitant fees or charges to their account without telling them, and then presenting them and their guarantors with a huge unpaid bill at the end of the tenancy.

What does the law say? Harassment and illegal eviction are criminal offences. Local authorities can prosecute landlords who commit such crimes, and can serve improvement notices or prohibition orders if housing conditions fall below acceptable standards. If the landlord fails to comply, they can be prosecuted. Landlords and letting agents are legally obliged to protect tenants’ deposits using an approved scheme, although that can be enforced only if a tenant takes the landlord to court. Landlords are now obliged to obtain a licence from their local authority to rent out larger houses in multiple occupation, and must meet certain standards to do so. Failure to obtain a licence is a criminal offence.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I commend the Shelter campaign. Does he agree that proper regulation of multiple occupation properties and private landlords must go hand in hand because the problems overlap? Indeed, in retreating from and watering down the measures that the Labour Government were introducing, after much campaigning by many MPs on behalf of tenants in that sector, the coalition Government risk giving a green light to rogue landlords.

[Jon Cruddas]

I agree totally, and I shall conclude my comments with similar questions. My right hon. Friend will agree that rogue landlords escape the law because of three basic elements: lack of awareness by tenants, lack of enforcement, and lack of resources afforded to authorities to carry out such tasks. On lack of awareness, victims of rogue landlords frequently do not report them because they are not aware of their rights, or fear that if they come forward their landlord will find out and evict them. On lack of enforcement, the law is not enforced often enough. For example, in 2004 only 26 landlords were convicted or cautioned for unlawful eviction, and in 2008 only one person received a custodial sentence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the legal process may be a little slow, not only for legal remedies for tenants, but for landlords when tenants are in arrears? Perhaps both problems should be examined.

[Jon Cruddas]

I do not dispute that there are occasionally problems on the other side, and I think we all agree on that. Such problems also need resolution, but they are completely and empirically outweighed by tenants’ problems that confront us as MPs.

On lack of resources, the Government’s Rogers review showed that more than 60% of councils devote a low or very low proportion of their regulatory resources to enforcing health and safety requirements or HMO licensing.

What can be done? The problem could be split between local and national Government. The Government could prioritise the private rented sector and give councils the tools that they need to force out rogue landlords. They could tighten the law to close the loopholes that rogue landlords use to exploit tenants, and they could make it easier for tenants to enforce their legal rights. Transparency and accountability could be increased, so that the public are better able to hold local politicians to account.

Local governments could prosecute rogue landlords and make use of the full range of tools and powers already at their disposal. They could be proactive in protecting tenants by carrying out regular housing condition surveys, and they could make sure that enforcement is properly resourced. They could also take advantage of the Housing Act 2004, which allows them to recoup costs by charging them to the landlord.

Today, Shelter has launched its campaign, and a new section of its website focuses specifically on action to tackle rogue landlords. It highlights the top scams that rogue landlords use against their tenants and releases the results of a survey produced jointly with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. It publicises the online and face-to-face advice service for people who have fallen victim to rogue landlords, and it encourages MPs to approach Shelter directly if they know of rogue landlords operating in their areas and to refer their constituents to the advice services.

I would like to refer to some of the key findings in the Shelter-CIEH survey. The results are stark: 99.2% of environmental health officers working in the private rented sector claim to have encountered landlords who persistently ignore their responsibilities; 96% of environmental health officers have encountered damp and mould; over 90% have found electrical hazards; and more than 91% have found fire safety hazards in the private rented sector. More than 60% of environmental health officers say that cases involving vulnerable people make up more than half their work load, and over half those officers believe that environmental health problems in the private rented sector are set to get worse over the next year.

Those issues cannot be separated from the wider policy context, which cannot be ignored. Many vulnerable people have been forced into the private rented sector because of the shortage of social housing. Local authorities increasingly look to the private rented sector to house homeless families, which in turn has forced up the bill for housing benefit. The Government spend millions of pounds on the private rented sector through the local housing allowance, and as a major customer in the sector, it is important that they properly monitor and question quality and standards. The recession has changed the nature of the private sector. There has been an increase in the supply of private lettings as home owners defer sales or are unable to sell and become “reluctant landlords”. Meanwhile, the majority of people whose homes are repossessed will move into the private rented sector.

The National Landlords Association has warned that the coalition Government’s planned changes to the local housing allowance will drive vulnerable tenants into the hands of rogue landlords. Making local housing allowance payments directly to landlords would make the market more attractive and secure for reputable landlords, while helping tenants who find it difficult to manage their finances.

As I said earlier, the Minister for Housing and Local Government has announced that Labour’s plans for a new national register of landlords, the regulation of letting and managing agents, and compulsory written tenancy agreements will be scrapped in the name of protecting “good” landlords from red tape. The national register of landlords planned to allow tenants to make basic checks on prospective landlords. It aimed to make it easier for councils to identify local landlords, thereby making the enforcement of letting rules simpler. The regulation of letting and managing agents was aimed at tackling rogue landlords and driving out the worst practices, such as wrongful eviction. It aimed to raise standards and provide protection for landlords and tenants in the event of a dispute. The compulsory written tenancy agreements sought to strengthen the hand of tenants in the event of a dispute and to ensure that tenants and landlords were clear about their rights and responsibilities. In the light of Shelter’s report, perhaps the Government will look again at those ideas and give them another hearing.

I know that my colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) wants to say a few words, so I shall conclude with some questions for the Minister. Does he recognise the problems with rogue landlords that Shelter has identified? Given the steady increase in the number of private renters, does he agree that tackling those problems should be a Government priority? Will the Government introduce measures in the decentralisation and localism Bill to ensure that local authorities can be properly held to account for their policies on tackling rogue landlords? What steps will the Government take to tackle rogue landlords who repeatedly commit the same offences?

Many MPs urged the last Government to fast forward their plans to implement the national register and to crack down on those unscrupulous landlords whom we have all come across. Those ideas appear to have been kicked into the long grass. I urge the Minister to study in detail the report launched today by Shelter and to come back and think again about what can be done to stop exploitation, harassment and negligence in the private rented sector.

11:15

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), and I thank him for securing this debate on the important research that Shelter has published and for allowing me to say a few words. Cornwall is experiencing an acute housing crisis, and the private rented sector continues to play an important role in addressing that crisis for my constituents. However, Shelter’s research should be a cause of concern to hon. Members from all parties. We all know that the majority of landlords act responsibly and treat their tenants reasonably. Nevertheless, a minority of landlords are inflicting great suffering on vulnerable people.

Across the United Kingdom, 3 million households live within the private rented sector—that is 14.2% for statistics junkies. That number has grown massively over recent years, and in my constituency, latest statistics show that in Newquay, one in five homes—20%—is in the private rented sector. That is well above the England average. We must ensure that private landlords look after people in their care. That is an important issue across the country.

During the three or four months in which I have been a Member of Parliament, my constituency postbag has shown examples of the kind of rogue landlord activity that Shelter mentions in its report. That includes illegal evictions, sometimes including violence, or cutting off water and electricity to force people to leave their homes.

Last summer, a family of four were evicted without warning, under the threat of violence and the use of knives. They were left with only a car to sleep in while one of the family’s daughters was doing her GCSEs. Another couple in my constituency, who have a small baby, were living in rotting, damp, leaky conditions. They were threatened by their landlord for reporting the situation to the environmental health officers that the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham referred to. The situation culminated in their utilities being cut off during a cold spell last winter.

Cases such as those and the many others across the country are unacceptable. We are hugely indebted to Shelter for its research and for bringing the problem to light at a national level. However, the issue is not just about violence and evictions. Tenants can suffer if landlords refuse to carry out essential maintenance and basic repairs, thereby wilfully neglecting their responsibilities and putting the health of their tenants at risk.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government is clearly experienced and knowledgeable about housing, and he is committed to ensuring that everyone has somewhere decent to live. He has already said that he expects councils to use

“the full range of powers at their disposal to make sure tenants are properly protected.”

I believe that local authorities must take a zero-tolerance approach to rogue landlords and that they must use all levers at their disposal to root them out. Enforcement powers are available to local authorities, but all too often such powers are not used. We do not necessarily need a raft of new legislation, but priority must be given to the enforcement of current legislation against rogue landlords. Councils must be proactive in protecting tenants by ensuring that they know where the problems are locally and prosecuting when necessary, and by considering the use of existing powers to introduce selective licensing.

Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham on securing the debate. This is a vital issue that affects millions of people across the country and I will be interested to see what plans the coalition Government have to tackle the problem.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing the debate and other colleagues on their potent interventions. In particular, let me mention my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), and thank him for bringing to the attention of the House some of the specific and horrific examples that he described.

I think that everyone present understands the importance of the private rented sector in delivering affordable and suitable accommodation for households. As has been reported, there are 3 million private tenants in this country. In the area represented by my hon. Friend and in London, a much higher percentage—as many as one in five—are in private rented accommodation. The sector provides a lot of choice and flexibility at all levels of the housing market.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The Minister makes the point that there is quality provision in the private rented sector, but I should like to point out the situation in my constituency and the east Lancashire corridor, which probably reflects that in many areas of the country. In my area, 40% of properties do not meet the decent homes standard and 11% are unfit for human habitation; and within those statistics, it is predominantly the private rented sector that features. How can he say that there is adequate provision and no need for regulation when such squalid conditions exist? Urgent action is needed on rogue private landlords. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) made the good point that environmental health officers are really struggling. The sector does need regulation, because such landlords are able to evade legislation. They are able to work round—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech.

[Andrew Stunell]

Indeed. I am getting a bit cramped for making my own speech, if I may say so, Mr Robertson. I shall just challenge the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on one point. He says that 40% of the homes in his constituency are below the decent homes standard—a figure that I fully accept. I do not know what proportion of them are in the private rented sector—he did not say—but of course a lot of homes below the decent homes standard are not in the private rented sector, and I do not want him to get away with the idea that the coalition Government believe that there should be no regulation. On the contrary, I shall outline in a moment, I hope, what we think is there and should be there and what should be done to enhance the situation that we face.

The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham, in introducing the debate, was, I think, criticising my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government for saying that the vast majority of private tenants are satisfied with the service that they receive. Well, 75% of them say that, which I think is somewhat near to being a vast majority, but I certainly recognise that there is poor practice.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Andrew Stunell]

I think that it would be a courtesy to the House if I continued with my speech at this point. Perhaps there will be a space at the end of the debate.

There is bad practice; a minority of landlords clearly behave in an unacceptable way; and the management of the poorest-quality stock is an issue. Those properties are often the ones that are occupied by the most vulnerable tenants, too. That causes real problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay pointed out.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government is well aware of the position that some people face. He is also well aware of the Shelter campaign. I can tell hon. Members that he will attend a public meeting with Shelter in a couple of weeks’ time, when he visits the Liberal Democrat conference, so I am sure that if he is in any doubt, he will be able to understand the position fully there.

What can we do to tackle the problem? Local authorities already have significant powers. Some hon. Members talked about illegal action that has taken place. Illegal action can be confronted by local authorities, whether by environmental health or by rent officers. Indeed, in Liverpool, there is an interesting situation in which such action is being confronted by the primary care trust, which is also involved in local health issues. It is certainly our intention to work with those who have an enforcement role, to ensure that the barriers to them using their powers effectively are lifted. Of course, those are mostly powers that are given to local authorities, which is exactly as it should be. Where landlords fail to maintain their properties, local authorities can use the housing health and safety rating system to make a risk assessment.

[Graham Jones]

The health and safety rating system involves very minimum standards. Does the Minister not agree that it involves appallingly low standards and does not come anywhere near meeting the decent homes standard? When environmental health officers are asked to go round and look at properties, they have no power at all to make the house reach a decent standard, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay.

[Andrew Stunell]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do. If he thinks that there should be a legal requirement for private landlords not to let if their home is not of a decent standard, I think that that will give a number of social housing landlords problems as well. I fully accept his point that standards in some places are low and need to be brought up to standard. I was trying to illustrate the fact that local authorities have powers at their disposal to achieve that.

There is an extensive enforcement framework. Where high levels of hazard are identified—categories 1 and 2—the local authority can compel private landlords to make the necessary improvements. It can issue improvement notices and require property to be closed down. Failure to comply carries a fine of £5,000.

One of the points that the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham made was that there are repeat offences, and one of his questions to me was what the Government will do about repeat offenders. Repeat offenders go to the courts, and the courts will take the decision based on the facts of the case. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the courts should take those breaches very seriously.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Given that the legislation in place to pursue rogue landlords is not strong, and even if we take the Minister at his word that the current legislation is strong enough, is it not the case that when local authorities are being asked to make cuts of 25% to 40%, the ability to pursue those landlords will be curtailed?

[Andrew Stunell]

The reality that we face means that there will be less public money to spend. The policy of the Department for Communities and Local Government and of the Government is to devolve the priority-setting process to local councils. If local councils share the hon. Gentleman’s view that increased enforcement is an essential core activity that they must build up, they will have much more freedom to do that. They will have to set priorities, just as the Government have to set priorities.

Conditions in the private rented sector have improved. Since the early 1990s, the gap in the level of decency between owner-occupied and privately rented homes has narrowed. Indeed, on average, the private rented sector has become more energy efficient than the owner-occupied sector. I fully understand that averages disguise highs and lows, but we should not demonise one sector of the housing market without taking better account of the evidence.

Local authorities have powers in respect of management standards. Under the houses in multiple occupation regime, there are statutory requirements for HMOs of three or more storeys occupied by five or more people who form more than one household. It is a bit of a rigmarole to say that, but we know what we mean. There is also the power for local authorities to have discretionary licensing schemes in their areas, covering smaller HMOs that do not meet the mandatory licensing criteria where they have identified problems with management and property condition. Hon. Members will know that there is a selective licensing scheme to cover all privately rented property in areas that suffer from low housing demand and persistent antisocial behaviour.

As part of the previous Government’s localism agenda, local authorities were granted, from April of this year, a general consent to introduce discretionary licensing schemes without reference to the Secretary of State. It is right for local decisions to be made by those who are directly accountable to local communities. We certainly have no plans to repeal that power.

Licensing schemes mean that local authorities can impose conditions on licences, such as a specified maximum number of occupants and that adequate amenities are in place. Private landlords have to be identified as “fit and proper” in terms of their suitability to manage the property. That perhaps deals with the repeat offenders point from a different direction. A breach of a licence condition is an offence. Letting or managing a property that requires a licence without one could result in a maximum fine of £20,000. Given all that, the Minister for Housing and Local Government came to the view that there was no need for more regulation at present. We do not want to introduce new burdens for landlords that will discourage them from letting homes to those who really need them.

Several comments were made about the tenancy deposit protection scheme. Of course, that is statutory. It helps to ensure good practice in deposit handling, so that when a tenant pays a deposit and is entitled to get it back, they can be assured that that will happen.

Perhaps in the last second of the debate, I can say that when it comes to raising tenants’ awareness, I am entirely with the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham. I believe that it is of absolute importance that at national and local level, and by us as MPs, the point is made to tenants—

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Unauthorised Encampments

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Annette Brooke in the Chair]

14:30

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The debate title given in the Order Paper is “Unauthorised encampments and development in the countryside”; when that topic comes up, it is often accompanied by the words “Gypsies” and “Travellers”. When seeking this debate, however, I deliberately omitted reference to any community or tradition. I did so for the simple reason that most Gypsies and Travellers are not engaged in unauthorised development. What we are talking about today would be just as problematic for any community.

The vast majority of Gypsies and Travellers are entirely law-abiding. Four fifths of caravan pitchings are in authorised locations, and many more among these communities live in bricks-and-mortar homes. We are therefore talking about a small segment. We should acknowledge up front that Gipsy and Traveller communities face particular problems. In health and education, they are among the most disadvantaged groups—their life expectancy is 10 years less than the national average and their attainment at GCSE is less than half the national average. As politicians, we have to rise more fully to those challenges, to ensure good life chances for all. Without doubt, the provision of decent sites in workable locations is an important part of that; so, too, is mutual understanding with others in the community, to ensure that everyone is on board.

As I said, most Gypsies and Travellers are entirely law-abiding, but the small segment who are not—those who occupy land illegally or make unauthorised developments to land that they own—can sour relations with local communities. That, in turn, can make it harder to secure the improvements in life chances and outcomes that we all want to see.

Problems that arise can be roughly categorised under one of three headings: first, trespass and occupation of public land by Gypsies and Travellers; secondly, their trespass and occupation of private land; and thirdly, unauthorised development on land owned by them. That last category has seen big growth in recent years and is the source of the greatest problems in my constituency of East Hampshire—and, I dare say, in many other constituencies.

Since 2004, there has been a national increase of more than two thirds in the number of Gypsy or Traveller caravans stationed on unauthorised sites owned by Gypsies or Travellers. I note in passing that that increase occurred at the same time as a large increase—indeed, in absolute terms a much larger increase—in the number of authorised sites.

This is a typical scenario. Someone buys a field from a farmer to keep horses, for example; after a while, an electric line and water supply are installed in connection with the keeping of the animals; then, over a weekend or a bank holiday, one or two caravans or mobile homes arrive, along with the heavy machinery needed for laying a hard surface and other works. A retrospective planning application is then made. It often turns out that the field in question is located on the edge of a settlement in what the planners define as a sustainable location. Temporary permission may be given, and so a cycle begins.

It is said by some that local authorities have only themselves to blame because they do not make adequate provision for sites within their borders—even if, for example, a site is available just outside the boundary. The assumption may be that one new authorised site will mean one unauthorised site less, but that will not always be so. Nevertheless, I repeat that I support provision of good authorised sites, and I welcome the Government’s inclusion of Traveller sites in the new home bonus scheme; I hope and trust that that will result in more sites.

Hon. Members may have read in the press about the village of Ropley in my constituency. The local community woke up to find that a Traveller site had been developed overnight. It was not the first in the area. The villagers knew that the matter could lead to months or years of appeals and uncertainty. So little faith did they have that the matter would be resolved that they clubbed together through voluntary subscription to buy the site at a substantial premium over what it had changed hands for previously.

If a small village community feels compelled to find a six-figure sum because they simply have no faith in the fairness of the legal and planning systems, there is clearly something wrong with the system. We need to find new ways to deal with the problems of unauthorised development and encampments in which the whole community can have confidence. People want fairness; they want to see the same rules applying to all.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I entirely support his proposals, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that, in trying to rebalance things to recognise the human rights of those who live next to Travellers’ unauthorised sites, we should give greater recognition to those already living in the location, tipping the balance away from what was proposed by the previous Government? They appeared to favour greater human rights for those who illegally occupy sites, such as the three that have been occupied in Gloucester during the last 12 months. They are all public sites and the most recent is on school land.

[Damian Hinds]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says goes to the heart of the issue. I believe that people want to see not so much a tipping of the balance towards or away from one group or another; they want to see the same rules applying to everyone. That is what underpins the compact of a cohesive society.

Some steps are already being taken. I welcome the announcement made by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 29 August, which revokes flawed Whitehall planning circulars. It gives new incentives to provide sites, which is important, and it gives stronger tenancy rights to Gypsies and Travellers on official council sites. The Secretary of State said in the same announcement that he was looking for new ways to empower local authorities to deal with rogue developments. I wish to suggest one, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s opinion of it.

I understand that there is a role for retrospective planning applications, but it must be possible to construct a set of principles that allows for genuine mistakes yet excludes the wilful abuse of the system to create wholly new dwelling places. That would not solve every problem, but it would go some way to restoring public confidence in the system, which has become badly discredited. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider the idea.

I conclude where I started, by stressing that we are talking about the actions of a small segment of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We need fairness and equality before the law. I am confident that that would aid rather than impair community cohesion and mutual understanding, with further improvement of the conditions and outcomes for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall stop there. I look forward to hearing their contributions.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

The Minister and the Opposition spokesperson have agreed to take 10 minutes for winding up. Many Members have indicated a wish to speak. The calculation is in their hands. I call Mr David Tredinnick.

14:39

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me in this debate, not least because I have in my constituency a very large community of travellers, some of whom have been resident there for a very long time. Some live on the Good Friday site, which came about, predictably, on Good Friday when a group of Travellers moved in. They fell under the third category of Travellers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. Those in that category buy land and then illegally improve it.

The group moved in with diggers and concrete-laying equipment, and laid out a properly made up caravan site. They had no permission, and, unfortunately, the council was caught napping. The chief executive was not available and nor were the councillors who might have been able to do something about it. As a result, we have a major problem there. Other sites in the area that have been purchased and then improved without permission have also proved to be very difficult to remove. That infuriates local communities more than any other issue. We have seen such developments across Warwickshire, Hampshire and Gloucestershire, and it infuriates law-abiding constituents to see the law flouted in such a way.

A related issue is the allocation of housing after an appeal. In the Markfield area of my constituency, a site went to appeal and, as a result, 112 new houses, which had been opposed by local people, are now being imposed on the community. That further increases the tension, not least because at Groby, just by Markfield, I have had another problem of illegal encampments on roads.

What we need is a new policy. I very much welcome the plans of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to introduce new powers for councils in relation to Traveller sites. The plans do not excuse councils from not implementing the existing rules; for planning officers, that can be a huge challenge because such an issue is not necessarily at the top of the list. Nonetheless, I welcome the plans to give new powers to local authorities.

In addition, we should not automatically be expanding areas on which we have a large number of existing sites. There should be a fairer distribution across the country. [Interruption.] I am most grateful for the applause from my hon. Friends. It is absurd that this tiny community in my constituency, between Bagworth, Newbold Verdon and Barlestone, should have a disproportionate number of sites. Moreover, why should we not put the new sites nearer roads, so that travellers can actually travel? Not all the communities are settled.

Why allow travelling people who are coming into the area to park their caravans way off the roads? The situation has been further exacerbated by the policy in the Republic of Ireland, which, paradoxically, took a very tough line with itinerants. As a result, we have a large number coming over here.

Moreover, we also have large numbers of illegals coming over from the European Union. Romanians, for example, have chosen to come into the area. I have to say that Leicestershire county council has been magnificent in the way in which it has helped the children of those communities in the schools. In particular, Barlestone Primary Church of England School, which has a disproportionate number of Traveller children, has made very great efforts.

Notwithstanding how we feel about trying to help such minority communities, we have to come back to the fact that the majority is very dissatisfied. If we have a situation in which most people think that the law is an ass, they will take the law into their own hands. On that note, I will end and ask the Minister to take note of my concerns.

14:45

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) when he said that we needed fairness, which is why I am speaking out on behalf of the settled community in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. People there are fed up to the back teeth with the way in which the previous Government allowed a two-tier planning system that explicitly gave preferential treatment to Gypsy and Traveller sites. Settled people in my constituency do not object to Gypsy and Traveller sites per se, but they believe that planning applications for those sites should be treated in exactly the same way as any applications from the settled community.

I could give any number of examples of unauthorised sites that have sprung up in my constituency. They have infuriated a number of communities, including that of Upchurch, which is surrounded by seven unauthorised sites, and Brambledown on the Isle of Sheppey. I should add here that, historically, the Isle of Sheppey has never had any Travellers or Gypsies, yet a site has now been installed.

One site in particular epitomises the concerns that settled people have with the two-tier planning system. In the small semi-rural community of Bobbing, just outside Sittingbourne, a crematorium has been established for just a handful of years. Opposite is a large field that was being used as a paddock. A couple owned the paddock. Unfortunately, the chap’s health deteriorated about three or four years ago and he became disabled. He wanted to be close to his horses so he put in a planning application to Swale borough council for a bungalow to be built on that land.

The planning officers and the development committee turned down the planning application on the grounds that the building of a bungalow in a countryside gap was inappropriate. The couple then decided to sell their land to somebody who lives in Medway, which is outside my constituency. As soon as the land was purchased, a planning application was submitted for a static caravan and a Travelling caravan to be installed on the site and for outbuildings to accommodate them.

The planning officers, who only 18 months before had turned down a planning application on the grounds that it was inappropriate to have development in an important countryside gap, recommended approval of the planning application on the grounds that, because the applicants were of Gypsy extraction, it was appropriate to have a development in the countryside gap.

That type of contradiction infuriates settled people. People go through the correct procedures to submit planning applications and then somebody else comes along and gets approval. The officers were following Government policy; they were not making it up on the hoof. They were following guidance put out by the previous Government. I very much hope that, as a priority, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will scrap that particular guidance note, which persuades local authorities and makes them give preferential treatment to one community over another.

I know that there is some talk about local authorities not being able to move people on because they are not providing sufficient sites. In my view, however, this issue is not about providing additional sites; too often, it is about somebody making a fast buck. That is epitomised by the case that I have just mentioned.

14:50

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for raising this issue.

I want to talk about the issue of people illegally developing land, and to focus particularly on the issues caused by multiple temporary consents. The established practice of a community’s moving on to land and putting down infrastructure before the local planning authority can respond has been referred to already. When that happens, the usual procedure is for the local authority to invite the people carrying out the development to apply for permission and, if that permission is granted, for it to apply retrospectively. That is not just in respect of this type of development; it is in respect of all types of development.

However, when somebody goes on to agricultural land and puts down infrastructure, in most cases the application is refused. Of course, that application then goes to appeal and in many cases the appeal process is very lengthy. The matter then becomes one of enforcement, but enforcement cannot take place while an appeal is pending. All these things take time.

During that time, development becomes entrenched, roadways are often made up, hard standings are put in place for mobile homes and fences are erected. While that is happening, the law-abiding settled community sees laws apparently being disregarded, often by another group, and they become frustrated at the lack of progress. So it is clear that the system needs attention and that councils need stronger powers.

The concept of retrospective applications should not be available in certain cases. By way of example, I want to focus on a particular area that has suffered from multiple temporary consents. It is a village or hamlet called Barnacle in the northern part of my constituency and it is in the green belt, where there is a presumption against development.

Barnacle is a small community, with 105 households and a population of 267, according to the 2001 census. It is approached by narrow country lanes and its parish council describes it as an ordinary place where working people enjoy living in a friendly, sociable environment. However, those people now have on their doorstep a site comprising 50 caravans and 10 mobile homes, and it is believed that there are 28 separate households on the site. It is the contention of those who live in Barnacle that the scale of the site is out of all proportion to a village containing 100 households.

I want to set out the sequence of events that has led to this situation, which started as long ago as April 2003. On the Good Friday, unauthorised use of a paddock began and the local authority immediately issued an enforcement notice. An appeal was immediately lodged against it. It took until February 2004 for the Planning Inspectorate to uphold the enforcement notice, but it set the period of compliance at 18 months.

At the end of that period of compliance, in August 2005, a planning application was submitted for a temporary two-year permission to be granted for people to reside on this particular site. That application was heard by Rugby borough council in October 2005. The council refused the temporary consent, but it extended the period of compliance, with the enforcement notice delayed until August 2006.

In April 2006, four months before the new compliance period expired, a planning application was submitted for a permanent dwelling. It took until July 2006 for the local authority to refuse permanent consent, but at that time the authority extended the period of compliance, so that the enforcement notice ran until August 2007. An appeal against the refusal was submitted and in September 2007 consideration of the planning appeal was deferred while the council considered the matter further.

We now move on to January 2008, when the Planning Inspectorate again granted a temporary planning consent at the site for a further two-and-a-half years, to expire in July 2010. At that time, the residents got in touch with me, as I was the new Member of Parliament for the area. The application made in July 2010 has not yet been heard; it is likely to be heard by Rugby borough council in October. The anxiety of the residents of Barnacle is that a further temporary consent may be granted, meaning that there will be no resolution to the issues that they face.

The problem that I want to draw attention to is the number of temporary permissions and extended compliance periods that have been granted. Temporary consents were granted principally on the basis that suitable accommodation would be available at a later point in time at a redeveloped caravan park nearby. That development has not happened, and it is feared that that new site is still not available. The concern of the residents of Barnacle is that there will be a further temporary consent. They have suffered from the “nowhere for them to go” issue; despite continued unauthorised development, that issue has enabled the site to be occupied for seven years already. And as each year passes, the site becomes more established and more permanent in its nature.

The residents of Barnacle find on their doorstep a development that contravenes both national and local planning policy and one for which local elected representatives have consistently refused consent. Yet they have lived with it for the past seven years. This issue needs to be redressed, with a review of the legislation, so that residents of places such as Barnacle can again enjoy their normal quality of life.

14:55

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate today.

I think that many if not all of us in Westminster Hall today have had to deal with the very difficult problem of Gypsy and Traveller sites. It is an absolutely critical issue in South Staffordshire. Only last weekend, in the village of Coven Heath we had an illegal invasion of a field, involving nine caravans. I can see an application going in to make that site permanent in the very near future.

South Staffordshire already has to carry a great burden in terms of providing accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller sites. From 2007 until today, 30 pitches have been granted planning permission in South Staffordshire for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Every single one of those 30 pitches was rejected by local people and local councillors, but they were forced on them by the last Labour Government. That is an utter and total disgrace.

It does not stop there. We already have three applications involving another 16 pitches that are going to the planning inspectors at Bristol. Because of the last Labour Government’s idea that there should be one law for the settled community and a different law for the Gypsy and Traveller community, there is every chance that those applications could get passed, too. What is even worse is that it does not stop there. Another 13 pitches have already been applied for that are due to go to planning.

Through their famous circular on Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites—ODPM 01/2006—the last Government have created an imbalance in the law, which discriminates against every person in this country who is not a Gypsy or a Traveller. I know that it has been announced that that circular will be changed, but I urge the Minister to ensure that it is changed swiftly.

The Government have announced that the regional spatial strategies are going to be abolished—

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

They have been abolished.

[Gavin Williamson]

I am told by my hon. Friend that they have been abolished, but we know that the Gypsy Traveller accommodation assessments are being used to get these sites passed on appeal. I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that they are scrapped.

The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment for the west midlands was pulled together by Salford university, which went around the west midlands and decided that, if there were 40 encampments in a district, it therefore needed another 40, and if a district had one encampment, it needed one extra. That is incompetent. My daughter of five could have done a better and more worthwhile report than Salford university’s. I urge the Minister to freeze every single planning application until new rules are drawn up. This Government have signalled their intention of dealing with the problem. I demand of the Minister not just to talk but to do.

15:00

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I have been moved to contribute by a recent situation in my constituency involving incidents in Southwold and, subsequently, Brampton. When I voiced my concern and my support for the local permanent community, I was accused of racism. As a consequence, I feel strongly that many of the viewpoints being expressed today are not about racism but about fairness, being seen to be fair and having a law that backs those who want to be fair.

The situation that I am going to describe is not too different from many others. Some hon. Members may have been on holiday to Southwold; the last Prime Minister certainly visited once. Those who have can imagine the surprise when a sudden development happened on the common. It was, I think, no coincidence that it happened at the weekend, when access to lawyers and councils was an issue, or that when the community were approached, they said, “We’re only coming here on our holidays; we’ll move off in a week.” My retaliation was, “Well, why don’t you pay to go down to the Caravan Club site rather than encroaching on the common?” It is a fine piece of open land that exists for the enjoyment of all the community and visitors.

Concerns were also expressed—I did not see this myself, so I cannot categorically affirm it—that a scrap metal business was being developed, which suggested that the encampment was not going to be temporary. There were concerns about what would happen further along the line. I believe that the community kept their word and moved on, but only a few miles down the road to Brampton, which is also in my constituency. Again, similar issues gave rise to a need for intervention.

We all know that police are reluctant to intervene. To some extent, I do not blame them, because of the cost and the resources required and the possible issues involved in moving on families. Councils and trustees of commons up and down the country must face legal costs every time the situation arises, which is not fair either.

I do not think I am alone in thinking of examples—perhaps not in Suffolk but in Hampshire, where I used to live—of the temporary, almost semi-permanent sites of more traditional Traveller communities. I can think of one on the Harroway near Whitchurch and another on the way to Hurstbourne Tarrant where people have taken up a sort of residence set away at the side of the road, deliberately not trying to create an effective empire with a number of permanent pitches.

The unfairness of retrospective planning has been discussed extensively. I support the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in tearing up some of the nonsense that came before us under the last Government, recognising that councils may wish to provide sites appropriately and giving them financial incentives to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned. It irritates me that people are often buying agricultural land at cheap rates. Once planning permission is obtained, of course, we all know that the value increases astronomically.

I am not attacking transient communities. They are a welcome part of society. Everyone in society makes choices about how we live, but we must also accept the responsibilities that go with those choices. We should also be considering not only our own solutions but other countries’. I find it ironic that the landmark ruling in 2000 giving Irish Travellers ethnic status does not apply in Ireland, which has made a different decision about how to categorise them that does not afford them protection under the Race Relations Act 2000 or subsequent legislation.

It is not racist to be concerned about unauthorised development. It is not racist to press for fairness for our constituents. It is not racist to say that the law of the land should be respected or that wilful trespass should be dealt with promptly and effectively, without costing a small number of local taxpayers a fortune. I welcome the actions thus far and look forward to seeing more.

15:05

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me so early in the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing it. It is hugely important to the situation in South Derbyshire. Since February alone, we have had 24 illegal incursions, in a district with authorised sites. That is why it is so galling for the people and voters of South Derbyshire. When we do the right thing, we are taken for mugs. Frankly, we are fed up. We will not put up with it any more, and nor will our voters. I assure the Minister that there will be civil disobedience over the issue.

I am grateful for the strong messages issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have finally won our appeal with the inspectors against illegal encampments and planning permission. It is the first that I have known in all my time in politics in South Derbyshire, which I assure hon. Members is a long time. We have an achievement, so I thank the new Government.

For goodness’ sake, when councils do the right thing and authorise encampments, can we please push forward with eliminating the John Prescott 21-day rule? It requires public authorities to go through a long process of sorting out whether there are human rights implications and goodness knows what else for these people, and it does not apply to anybody in our settled communities. It is complete nonsense.

We have good police action in Derbyshire, where we seek to assist private landowners to go down the 24-hour bailiff route to remove people where—I say this again—vacancies are available on authorised sites. But when the land is owned by the authority, Severn Trent, the Highways Agency or similar, there is still the nonsense of having to do the dance of the John Prescott 21-day rule. Will the Minister assure us as much as he can today, and later in writing, that that rule will be scrapped?

We are delighted by the strong ruling to get rid of the regional spatial strategy and the pitches rule. It assisted enormously when we wrote to the Planning Inspectorate and helped us fight off the latest planning inquiry. That was the first one ever. I wrote the strongest letter I have ever written in my life. The language was not particularly parliamentary, but it got the point through and we won. Will the Minister please carry on with the issue and ensure that it is sorted out? My electorate expect it to happen in the coming Session, and I look to him to see it through.

15:08

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friends, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. He said in his opening remarks that he wanted to focus on three aspects of the issue. I will make a few remarks about the first aspect, trespass and occupation, based on incidents in my constituency, although I do not claim that we have had the same number of incidents as the constituencies of other Members who have spoken.

I wanted to highlight the fact that some small groups of Travelling communities are clever in exploiting tactically chosen sites. The ownership of the land might be disputed, it might take some time to find out who is responsible and a lot of time is wasted before an enforcement notice is made.

We have had particular problems with this in Folkestone, where a single group of Travellers have moved between different sites. They have been able to stay at sites for several months. Recently, a community spent three months on a piece of land backing on to a residential community in Birkdale drive in the Park Farm area of Folkestone before an enforcement notice was made. That was largely because of a dispute between Kent Highway Services and the Highways Agency as to which of them was responsible for the site. It turned out that the Highways Agency believed that it had transferred ownership to Kent Highway Services, but there was no record of any such transfer, and the community stayed on the site during the to-ing and fro-ing.

I have every sympathy for the district commander of the local police, who was keeping a careful eye on the site, but who was powerless to do anything until the enforcement order was made. Even then, when the dispute had been resolved, and Kent Highway Services agreed to go to court to try to get the enforcement notice—it was still not clear whether it owned the land—it took time to get court time and to get the notice granted. Residents felt that no one was really doing anything to resolve their plight. The Travellers cleverly exploited the ambiguity to enable them to stay, and they have moved from site to site doing the same thing.

My constituents’ question is whether we could look at the law on trespass, alongside some of the other points that have been raised, and which I know the Department is considering. If Travellers have gained access to a site, and it is clear that they do not own the land and have made no efforts to establish contact with the landowners or do not know who they are, there should be some obligation on them to prove that they have a right to be there. It should not just be for the public authorities to prove that the Travellers do not have the right to be there, particularly when the process might take quite a long time, and it is clear that we are dealing not with a temporary encampment, but with a permanent occupation of the land until an enforcement notice has been granted.

In the example that I gave, the Travellers made no attempt to create an illegal, permanent camp or to alter the land in any way; they were simply going to stay on the land for as long as they could, until they were moved on. However, they did that in the full knowledge that that could take quite some time, and there was nothing that the resident community could do while we were going through the relevant processes. I would be grateful if the Government looked at the issue and gave us some advice as to whether we can simplify or revise the law. Could some consideration be given to the databases and the land registry for the ownership of public land where land is passed between public bodies and there may be some confusion as to who is the responsible party?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order. There is considerable time until the winding-up speeches at 3.40 pm. Two people are standing at the moment, and others who wish to speak should indicate that they want to do so.

15:12

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will try not to fill the long period that you described between now and the winding-up speeches, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on raising this issue, which I have heard debated four or five times in this Chamber in the past five years or so. That, along with the number of my hon. Friends seeking to speak in the debate, demonstrates what an extremely important issue it is. Indeed, it affects communities across the whole of England, and those hon. Members here today probably represent only a small number of those on both sides of the House who have significant worries about the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) raised the particularly interesting topic of trespass. As far as I can recall, the issue was dealt with quite well in one of the last Acts passed by the previous Conservative Government in 1997, which made some efforts towards putting the point right. Although the legislation no doubt needs improving, the basic machinery is there. With the exception of my hon. Friend, however, all the others who have spoken in the debate have addressed the identical problem of people of one sort or another—I will come back to who they are—illegally occupying a vacant site, of which they have taken ownership, nearly always on a bank holiday Monday. Within a few days, they insert hard standing.

[Heather Wheeler]

The interesting point about trespass is that there is no criminal trespass law on which we can rely in relation to public authority land. We are looking for our new coalition Government to bring forward from our manifesto a new intentional criminal trespass law that will allow us to have the same rights for public authority land as for private authority land. That would be a major development, and I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to mention it.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend makes a similar point to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Both my hon. Friends are quite right, although their point is not absolutely central to the topic of today’s debate, which is the illegal occupation of land owned by Gypsies, Travellers and others.

As I said, the pattern we see is a similar one, and many people have described it in the debate. People move on to land, often on a bank holiday weekend. Before anybody knows what is happening, hard standing has gone down, toilet blocks have been erected and gardens have been put in. Often, little bungalows—we are not talking about caravans—are established in a very short time, as I have seen in Minety in my constituency. I have eight or 10 illegal Gypsy encampments in my constituency, including at Calcutt park, near Cricklade, and various other places. In a short time, something that looks for all the world like a village has been established. There are wheelie bins at the end of the drive, electricity has been laid on and these people have established something that no one else would be allowed to establish.

I will not bore hon. Members by repeating what a number of my hon. Friends have eloquently described. However, I want to address the reason why such developments are allowed to occur. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) referred to the way in which the noble Lord Prescott—what a noble Lord he is—introduced planning circular 01/06. Hon. Members will recall that the circular told planning inspectors that where local authorities are not able to demonstrate that there is adequate provision for Gypsies and Travellers elsewhere in their area, there should be a presumption in favour of illegal Gypsy and Traveller encampments. That has meant—I have had several such cases in my constituency—that where the planning inspector sits on an appeal, the law requires him to say that unless the local authority can demonstrate that there is adequate provision elsewhere, he must give the Gypsies and Travellers permission for their illegal encampment. I do not blame the inspectors; they have no other option but to do that, because that is what the single planning note requires them to do.

Leaving aside the two-tier planning system that such an arrangement implies—I will come back to that in a second—there are several specific problems associated with the circular. First, it does not stipulate who Gypsies and Travellers are. No distinction is made under law between hippies, new age travellers, people who are homeless, traditional Romanies, of whom there are many in my constituency, Irish Travellers, Roma and people coming in from France. Indeed, the French Government recently expelled a large number of Roma, and there is nothing to prevent them from coming here and declaring themselves to be Gypsies or Travellers. There is therefore no definition in the law to distinguish between those people.

As another speaker mentioned a moment ago, when the Gypsy and Traveller assessments were made under the regional spatial strategy—I am glad that that document is now defunct—local authorities were required to assess how many Travellers there were in their area and what provision there was for them. However, there is no way of doing that. By definition, these people are Travellers. Are we talking about the Travellers resident in the county of Wiltshire, the south-west of England, the west of England, Wessex, England or what? There is no scientific way of assessing who these people are, because, by definition, they do not live in one place. A very large number of the Travellers in my constituency come from Ireland. Others come from the continent of Europe.

Incidentally, one interesting side issue is that the Irish and the Romanies will not live on the same site. The site at Thingley junction in my constituency has vacancies, but it is occupied by Irish Travellers. The Romanies, perfectly reasonably, say that they do not want to go there, because the two groups do not like each other. I am just not certain, however, that society has a duty to provide for people who do not happen to like each other. If somebody came to my constituency surgery and said, “I want a council house, but I’m not going to live in that council estate full of Irish people, because I don’t want to live with the Irish,” I would say, “I’m extremely sorry about that madam, but you’re jolly well going to have to put up with it.” The same applies in this case.

As I said, we do not know who these people are. By definition, they are Travellers. The Traveller population in the United Kingdom has been increasing exponentially over the past 30 or 40 years, and I will come back to that in one second. Asking a local authority whether it has enough provision for these people is an impossible question to answer. It cannot, by definition, say, “Yes, we do.”

[Gavin Williamson]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has witnessed a similar situation in Wiltshire, but a number of Gypsies and Travellers in South Staffordshire have successfully applied for planning permission and obtained established sites. I then notice in the local newspaper that those sites are being commercially marketed to people who are not Gypsies and Travellers. People are exploiting the law for personal profit.

[Mr Gray]

I noticed that episode when it was recently mentioned in the newspapers, but that has not been my experience. All the illegally occupied sites in my constituency, and I think throughout the west country, have gone on to be fully occupied by Gypsies and Travellers. I have not seen any being sold on, although I suppose there is no reason why they should not be. However, I have my doubts about whether a local authority would give planning permission to a settled person to take over a Gypsy encampment afterwards. I certainly recommend that it should not.

The numbers are extremely interesting. When I was special adviser to the then Secretary of State for the Environment we had the great joy of repealing the legislation that required local authorities to make provision for Gypsies and Travellers in their counties. We did so because when the Labour Government passed the provisions there were, from memory, 3,500 illegally parked caravans in England. In 1996, by the time we had repealed them, there were 6,000 illegally parked caravans, so the illegals had more or less doubled. That was in addition to the 7,000 pitches that local authorities had by then provided. Those authorities had provided twice as many pitches as they were required to under the Act, and a further 6,000 were illegally parked. That total of 13,000 caravans in England has now become 18,355, according to a recent survey. The number went from 3,500 to 18,500 in as many years.

[David Tredinnick]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point, which can perhaps be illustrated by a comparison with road building. When an extra lane is put on a motorway it does not solve the problem; it just brings in another lane’s worth of traffic.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is right. It is what I would describe as a Parkinson’s law of Gypsy caravans. No matter how many sites are provided for them, more appear. That takes us back to the original question of the definition of what those people are. Who are Gypsies? What are Romanies? What definition do we have under the law? The answer is none at all: the more sites are provided, the more people appear to fill them.

I therefore do not subscribe at all to the underlying principle behind planning policy guidance note 01/06 that somehow a local authority must demonstrate that it has made adequate provision. It is not possible for a local authority to demonstrate that. No matter how many sites it provides, it is perfectly possible for the Gypsy and Traveller community to say that there are not enough. Indeed, there seems to be a moth-to-a-flame attraction: the more sites are provided in a county, the more Gypsies and Travellers appear to try to fill them. Wiltshire and the west country as a whole seem to be a bit of a hot spot for that.

That seems to me to be completely wrong, and the Government have indicated their intention to address the situation. We must do so by abolishing Lord Prescott’s planning guidance note and the regional spatial strategy and by telling local authorities exactly what they are told in relation to homeless people from the settled community: the rule for the settled community is that if someone needs a council house they go to see the local authority or—too often—their MP, or a housing association. To get a house one must demonstrate need, in a certain prioritised way, and a local connection. If someone came to my constituency surgery and said, “Hello; I come from Inverness and I am homeless. I want you to get in touch with the local authority and get me a council house,” I would say, “I’m awfully sorry. You must get back to Inverness and get your council house there. You aren’t going to get one in Wiltshire because we demand a local connection.” Precisely the same applies to the Gypsy community. They are very nice people. A number are close friends of mine. Those who live in Wiltshire have a right to proper Gypsy encampments there. However, those who come to Wiltshire from elsewhere have no right to demand that the people of Wiltshire should pay for sites to accommodate them. Exactly the same rules should apply to them as to anyone else with regard to planning and housing.

An example from my constituency, which I think is an outrage, highlights what has gone wrong with our planning process. A very nice lady came to see me. She had an organic farm in the village of Box in my constituency. She had a caravan, in which she lived, in the centre of the organic farm, which was about 15 acres. Rather bizarrely, the local authority looked at the profitability of the organic farm and concluded that it was not profitable and was not a going concern, and that she could not make it a going concern. Had it been profitable my constituent would have been allowed to carry on living in the caravan. That in itself is bizarre. She was required to leave the caravan, although, incidentally, she was allowed to leave it for chickens. It could remain where it was as long as she did not live in it. Fine so far.

Next door, just down the road, is an entirely vacant field that was bought at a very high price by a group of Travellers. They moved on to the site and are in the same position as the non-Traveller organic farmer. They went to appeal and said, “We are Gypsies” and the inspector was required by law to give them permission to remain in the field, adjacent to the one from which someone from the settled community had been removed. That seems to me to be disgraceful. There is no reason why any group in society—white, black, green, gay, straight, Chinese or anything you like—should have different planning rules from those affecting anyone else. There should be one law for one, and one law for all.

[George Hollingbery]

I am curious about the example that my hon. Friend has raised, and the more general implications. He has rightly said that there is no formal legal mechanism for assessing whether someone is a Gypsy or a Traveller, yet local authorities regularly make such assessments. Does he have any experience of how local authorities make the decision? Perhaps the Minister will elucidate the matter and tell us how local authorities can make a better job of assessing who is, or is not, qualified under the Human Rights Act 1998 or other legislation.

[Mr Gray]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will not agree on this issue. I take the view that it is not up to local authorities to decide who is a Gypsy, who is a Romany, who is an Irish Traveller, who is a dropout, who is a hippy and who is a settled person. Every human being, of every kind, whatever their colour, race, background or class may be, should be treated identically by the local authority, which does not need guidelines about what to do. The same applies with respect to the Human Rights Act, about which some hon. Members in the Chamber have reservations. I do not think that it should come into the consideration of whether land should be set aside for Travellers or anyone else. The Act is about human rights, but the issue that we are talking about is planning, and I do not think that Travellers or anyone else should be given preference over the settled community merely because they are Travellers. What a perfect definition of racism that is—for a local authority to say “We are required to do something for you, not because you are a good man, or a bad man, but because you claim to be some kind of Romany, Irish, Roma, Gypsy or who knows what. You claim you are that, and therefore I must do something for you that I will not do for someone else.” That seems to me to be unacceptable in 21st-century Britain and I hope that the new Secretary of State will do away with it.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I apologise to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for missing the opening speeches; I was detained on other business. I intervene on the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire) to ask whether he is denying the existence of Travelling people as a community in the UK. If so, presumably he would disagree with the approach that I believe the Government have retained, that local authorities should, wherever possible, find and provide sufficient official sites to meet the needs of the Travelling community. If that were done, we would not be debating the issue of illegal encampments because sufficient pitches would be available for those in need.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords for many years on many subjects. He was late for the debate and I am not sure whether he missed any of my speech as well; I certainly was not denying the existence of the Travelling community. Quite the opposite. I said at the beginning of my speech that I felt strongly that the Travelling community had a perfect right to be Travellers; good luck to them. That is fine. It is not my way of life. I cannot stand camping at all. However, if they want to be Travellers, that is fine. It is right that the local authority should make suitable provision for the Travelling community, as it does for the settled community. It is right to do that for the local Travelling community, but I see no reason to do so for the wider Travelling community. I certainly do not deny its existence, nor the state’s responsibility to make proper provision for it. It is right to do that, but we are discussing the means by which that happens, not whether it should happen.

I welcome the stricter stance taken by the incoming Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the abolition of the regional spatial strategy, which is the document behind much of what we are debating. I hope that as part of what happens we shall do away with the Gypsy and Traveller assessments, which were flawed, to say the least, whoever did them—Salford technical college or anyone else. I call on the Secretary of State to stipulate that the planning status of Gypsies and Travellers is precisely identical to the planning status of everyone else—indeed, their rights in every other respect should be identical to everyone else’s. I also call on him to introduce stronger enforcement powers, so that when these outrages occur, local authorities have the power to go on to these sites and deal with these people as they would anyone else. I very much welcome the fact that he has stipulated in his general approach to planning that the people who decide whether or not these things occur, whether with regard to Gypsies or to houses, should be local councillors who are answerable to local people. They should make up their mind about how such things happen; it should not be down to Lord Prescott or his successors in the DCLG.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Ollerenshaw. I remind you that the wind-ups will start at 3.40 pm.

15:30

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I will try to be brief, Mrs Brooke, so that other hon. Members may contribute. Thank you for calling me. My comments may seem repetitive to the Minister, but I am told that repetition sometimes helps when dealing with Ministers. The huge number of hon. Members present should demonstrate to him how much of a national problem the issue is, although the Labour party does not seem to be aware of that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on initiating the debate and on how he has balanced his comments. All hon. Members recognise their obligations to the Traveller community, as they do in respect of every other community in Great Britain. No one would wish to detract from that, and I congratulate hon. Members on how they have dealt with the matter.

The focus of the debate has moved geographically; I think my seat, Lancaster and Fleetwood, is the most northern one represented by hon. Members here. That surely proves the national scale of the problem. I first became aware of the matter that I wish to raise on the evening of 6 November 2009, which happened to be a Friday. At 6 o’clock on a Friday evening, council offices and the planning department shut down.

I was informed by the residents of a small hamlet called Preesall Hill—just 50 or 60 houses—that a triangular piece of land surrounded by roads was suddenly covered in Travellers. They told me that hardcore was being moved in, electricity was being supplied and boarding was being put up. That development went on all over the weekend, when no one could get to the council. I would like to repeat the reference to the word “wilful.” My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made a significant point about that, and we hope that the Minister will reply to it. If anything can be called wilful, the actions that I have described must fall into that category.

On Monday, the police were called, so they were diverted from other matters. The council was also called—everyone and his aunt were called to consider the matter. It was then discovered that the Travellers had actually bought the land, which posed the council with another problem. The council sought an injunction—in the end, it had to seek three injunctions—to call for a retrospective planning application. By that stage, some of the Travellers’ children were going to the small village school, on which there was also an impact. So, the impacts were starting to add up. The people living in Preesall were saying, “What is going wrong around here? Who can get away with this?” Other hon. Members have mentioned similar responses.

On 2 September last week, the matter finally got to planning—by the way, when it first went to planning, not enough information was supplied, so it had to be deferred. As I say, the matter got to planning on 2 September and there were all the relevant reports—ecology, engineering, highways and so on. The land had been designated as countryside by the local Wyre district plan, and was actually a field. The difference with this case is that a company called Green Planning Solutions turned up at the planning. Its website states:

“we specialise in winning planning permission on difficult sites, usually rural locations including the green belt.”

Meanwhile, a Preesall action group of concerned neighbours had been set up and people who were in the process of selling their properties were unable to do so. People who have jobs and other things to do were taking action to try to restore their community. To be fair to those people, they were also trying to establish some sort of relationship with the Travellers who were by that time arguing that they needed a permanent pitch. By the way, twice over the past 12 months, the Travellers have disappeared somewhere for three months, so they must have sites in other places.

I return to when the matter got to planning. At the meeting, a Mr Green—who apparently runs Green Planning Solutions, which advertises in the way I have described—boasted to the Wyre planning committee that he usually wins most of his cases. He said that 47% of his cases go to appeal and that he usually wins 94% of those. Apparently, he warned the council that if it dared to appeal, it would cost the council and taxpayers dear.

[Heather Wheeler]

I hesitate to interrupt because my hon. Friend is in mid-flow and, as ever, he is excellent to listen to. What I find absolutely galling—this may help other hon. Members in this Chamber—is that we have had five planning permissions go through under which Travellers have now got authorised sites, but the Travellers are not there. Where are they? Why do they need those sites? They have got them, apparently, only because of need, but they have not been on them for 12 months. Lancaster and Fleetwood should get on with it. This is just outrageous.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Thank you, Derbyshire. I totally agree—whether Travellers want permanent or non-permanent sites. I should also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) as he has some history on this matter. The point about the definition of Travellers and so on was really pertinent.

In the case that I have mentioned, the Travellers are obviously waiting to see whether there will be an appeal. Nothing has changed on the site, and they are assuming that there will be an appeal, which will lead to costs for a small district council. Meanwhile, Mr Green has boasted that he wins most of his appeals. What does that say to people who pay their rates and do the usual law-abiding thing? As all hon. Members have said, all they want is fairness and for local councils to have the ability and powers to deal with the issues that affect them and their residents.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I thank the large number of contributors. Everyone has been fairly brief, which has been very helpful. I call Mr Gordon Marsden.

15:36

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on a crisp and temperate presentation of the issues that not only he but other hon. Members in the Chamber have encountered. I was particularly interested in his strong focus on the issue of unauthorised occupation—that matter has come across strongly today. Some of the difficulties surrounding that issue are very different from those surrounding the debate about the need for authorised sites, which again has been robust. I shall try to bring out some of those issues in my remarks.

I start by mentioning some of the facts and the chronology of what the previous Government did—or, indeed, attempted to do—regarding some of the matters raised. I understand that some Conservative Members may not be aware of those points. That is not surprising, given that a “year zero” approach seems to have been adopted by the Department for Communities and Local Government website; all reference to what was done in the six months before the election has been removed. However, with your permission, Mrs Brooke, I shall touch on some of the things that were done in that period.

In March 2010, DCLG launched guidance that was sent to police, local authorities and other agencies. That guidance focused particularly on adopting a multi-agency approach to helping communities tackle the problems of antisocial behaviour on Travellers’ sites, including the use of antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts. I shall return to those important points.

In introducing that document, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), the then Secretary of State, said:

“local councils and the police have strong powers and tools to crack down on anti-social behaviour—and I expect them to be used to the full. This guidance will help ensure that the local agencies understand the powers available to them.”

The Home Secretary at that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said—it is important to make this point because various hon. Members have mentioned it—

“The Gypsy and Traveller community is treated no differently than the rest of the community. Perpetrators of crime and antisocial behaviour will be punished and, where appropriate, taken through the criminal courts and jailed.”

From the Opposition’s point of view, I would like to emphasise that that principle, elucidated by the former Home Secretary, stands four-square.

In addition to that, on the question of unauthorised developments, a statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 9 March 2010, which reduced the period of appeal against refusal of an unauthorised development from six months to 28 days. That reduced the ability for the time frame to be exploited where unauthorised developments are in situ.

That did not come out of the blue; it was based on the findings of the Briscoe report, which was set up in 2007 and revised in 2009. It is worth noting that that was regarded as a priority by DCLG Ministers, which is why it reached the statute book before the wash-up and Dissolution. That was because of the importance of the need to reduce the period of uncertainty for local residents after local authorities refuse a planning application. In addition to those enforcement measures, the previous Government continued to support local councils in their bids to establish authorised Traveller sites, and £32 million was pledged from the Homes and Communities Agency budget as part of the site grant for 2010-11.

I have mentioned the difference between authorised and unauthorised sites. Although I appreciate that in some circumstances there can be significant problems with authorised sites, I believe that the development of authorised sites helps to combat the problem. To be fair, the current Government believe that as well, but the question of where the money will come from is another matter. On that main point, however, there is a consensus between the Opposition and the Government. There is evidence that the creation of authorised sites saves councils significant amounts of money. Once Bristol city council invested in a transit site, for example, having relied on enforcement action before, it reduced its related annual costs from £200,000 to £5,000.

The previous Government also intended to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to give improved security and right of tenure to Gypsies and Travellers on official sites. Unfortunately, as the present Government were kind enough to acknowledge in a statement to the House on 27 July, there was no parliamentary time to debate those statutory instruments before the general election. They do, however, relate to the application of the 1983 Act. The Minister will no doubt remark that the Government intend to make a decision on section 318 in due course, in the context of the wider strategy. There is no difference between the policies of the previous and current Governments.

I now turn to what the current Government have said and done since taking office. In May 2010, as part of the first round of spending cuts, the Homes and Communities Agency ended the Gypsy and Traveller programme grants for the creation of authorised sites. As far as I am aware, the regional spatial strategies have been revoked but not yet formally abolished. Their formal abolition will no doubt be presented later in the year as part of the decentralisation and localism Bill that the Government are promising—or threatening us with. That removed the obligation for local authorities to identify sites that could be used for authorised Travellers. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and I suspect that that will be the case if there is no formula whatever.

On the point about returning to regional spatial strategies, there will be no formula whatever for dealing with what will be a continuing problem. I put it to Members and the Minister that without some form of overarching framework there is a danger that local authorities will pass the parcel and try to shift the onus of provision on to neighbouring authorities, which will be doing likewise.

[Mr Gray]

Why should there be an overarching vision? Surely it should be for local authorities to decide what provision they make for Gypsies and Travellers in their areas. Why should anyone else decide that?

[Mr Marsden]

I would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of nimbyism, but I think that such action is common sense. Indeed, in his eloquent contribution he explained that Travellers move around a lot. Simply playing pass the parcel with those people is no mechanism for dealing with them, and I find the idea that it is rather bemusing.

[Andrew George]

I wish to elaborate on the issue that the hon. Gentleman is addressing. It is clear from many studies that authorised sites are far better for community relations within an area, and for the health and welfare of Travellers, than unauthorised sites. In areas where the Travelling community clearly needs an authorised site, but where the local authority refuses to provide it, how would a Government ensure that that need is met? That is the crux of the problem.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is absolutely right; it is for the Government to decide how to deal with that conundrum. My point is that one cannot just assume that the problem will go away, so it needs to be addressed.

In his policy announcement in August, the Secretary of State talked about liberating local authorities from Whitehall control, but he did not offer any clear substance or resources with which councils could act on his guidance. It is all very well talking about improving security of tenure for Travellers on local authority sites, but what local authority sites are likely to exist when funding is cut and obligations are removed? Surely that will lead to a growth in unauthorised sites and the associated costs of enforcement.

The Secretary of State also announced that Traveller sites would be delivered as part of the new homes bonus scheme, but the details of that scheme will be set out in a public consultation later this year. Concerns have already been expressed about how the new homes bonus scheme will operate. I invite the Minister to elucidate further how the funding for Traveller sites might be delivered under the scheme.

A lot of strong rhetoric has been used in relation to planning circulars 01/06 and 04/07. Given the subject, I understand that but the Government have made no concrete announcements on how enforcement powers will be increased. Again, further announcements are to be made in due course. Once again—I am afraid that this has been a characteristic of DCLG Ministers since they took office—rhetoric and talk of abolition has come before any thoughtful addressing of new structures and guidance.

I invite the Minister to say a little more on the matter and on antisocial behaviour and acceptable behaviour contracts. We believe that those remain an important tool for preventing antisocial behaviour on Traveller sites. However, the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, have talked about their desire to move beyond ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts. Would the Minister state what consultations DCLG Ministers will have with the Home Secretary before they spell out some of those changes in chapter and verse in the decentralisation and localism Bill?

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I congratulate you, Mrs Brooke, on chairing the debate today and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on his measured introduction to what is undoubtedly a difficult issue for many Members. Eleven other Members have also made speeches and a few more have intervened in the debate, so I hope that they will forgive me if I do not respond to every point that was made.

The Government share the concern that has been expressed today about unauthorised Traveller encampments and developments and their effect on local communities. The record will show some strong stories from across England. The Government want to see fair play and everyone treated equally and even-handedly, whatever community they come from or lifestyle they choose to pursue. We certainly will not allow a small minority of Travellers to set up unauthorised encampments and developments to create resentment and give other Gypsies and Travellers a bad name, worsening community cohesion along the way.

It is worth putting on the record the fact that 80% of Gypsy and Traveller families—those who are on the move and not already in bricks and mortar—are on authorised public or authorised private sites and therefore outside the scope of the complaints and discussions that we have heard today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am pleased to hear hon. Friends acknowledge that reality. We must be careful not to demonise the community because of some bad behaviour by some bad apples, whether they are Gypsies, Travellers or individuals from any other community.

About 13% of Gypsy and Traveller families are on their own land, but unauthorised sites. About half as many again are trespassing and encamping on land that they do not even own. We want to ensure that we provide stronger enforcement powers for local authorities to tackle such unauthorised sites and encampments. We want to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning applications. I fully share the frustration and anger that has been expressed in the debate about how those applications can be manipulated in such cases.

I am sure that hon. Members who have recently joined the House will find, as their in-trays get fuller, that they get complaints of a similar kind about retrospective planning applications of all sorts, not simply about Gypsies and Travellers. The localism Bill will be taking a completely fresh look at planning legislation and will include specific provisions about that. I hope that hon. Members understand that I am not in a position to spell the provisions out in detail.

We want to incentivise local authorities to provide appropriate sites. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), the Labour spokesman, suggested that we were speaking far too often before we had worked out the detail, but then he was pressing me to speak before we had the detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the detail is being worked out but, as with so many other things, as a junior Minister I must say, “Await the Chancellor’s statement on 20 October.”

[Mr Marsden]

I do not expect the Minister to have every dot and comma to hand—the devil is indeed in the detail, and he does not want to be tackling the devil until he needs to. However, I gently point out the issue about the regional spatial strategy. The Secretary of State set out his intention in a five-line letter, causing considerable concern—and, in some cases, hilarity—among the planning departments of various local councils as to its legal force.

[Andrew Stunell]

For every sign of distress, I saw 10 signs of joy.

I want to make the point that we are also committed to addressing the discrimination and poor social outcomes experienced by Traveller communities. Some of those issues have been mentioned—schooling, health and the security of their living accommodation. In the longer term, we want to see a plan, policy or strategy that can deliver the Travelling community authorised sites, where they can live in harmony with the settled community and with the access to health and education that everyone else has and is entitled to.

As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said when introducing the debate, some of the figures are dramatically bad—length of life, maternal and child mortality, educational attainment—and ought to fill us with despair and a determination to do something about the situation.

Let me come back to the core of what has been said today. We have already written to local authorities, reminding them to be alert to the particular risks of unauthorised development over bank holidays and to be ready to respond to that. The revocation of regional strategies means that the decision making about housing of all types, including Traveller sites, will come back to local communities. We have announced our intention to revoke circular 01/2006 and to bring local authority Traveller sites into the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which was on the verge of happening before the general election, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South correctly pointed out. We believe that it is right that that should go ahead.

I have been asked to give more detail about the New Homes Bonus scheme, but I must hold back and refer hon. Members, once again, to the statement on 20 October. However, the work is there and everything is ready.

I now turn to exactly what the problem is. Under the previous Government, the number of caravans on unauthorised developments increased from 887 in 1997 to 2,395 in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) drew attention to that—the problem has not been getting smaller. The problem is not a reducing, residual one, but a continuing and, in some ways, growing one. We will ensure that the planning laws provide fairness between the settled and Travelling communities.

[Andrew George]

Given the vacuum following the removal of the RSS requirements and the Minister’s statement that local authorities must now provide adequately for the Travelling community in their own areas, what do the Government propose if the need is clear but the local authority is unable or refuses to ensure such provision? How can the need be met in order to avoid circumstances in which such illegal and unauthorised encampments occur?

[Andrew Stunell]

I am not announcing the details of the Government’s policy on Gypsies and Travellers in today’s debate—I cannot pre-empt such an announcement. However, we are looking at such matters carefully, with some policies to be made explicit in the localism Bill, together with what we are doing about planning powers and enforcement, and some policies from other directions, as we work through the implications of providing incentives for local authorities to provide sites where needed.

[Gavin Williamson]

I asked a brief question in my speech about Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments. When considering appeals, are the planning inspectors to disregard totally the flawed GTAAs?

[Andrew Stunell]

The Secretary of State has made it clear that we are repealing circular 01/2006. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is the answer he needs. If I have missed a point, he can write to me and we can explore the issue in a little more depth.

In the course of preparing for the debate, I had the opportunity to speak to the assistant chief constable of Warwickshire, who holds the Gypsy and Traveller portfolio for the Association of Chief Police Officers. He takes responsibility across England for the police approach. His views were clear. Of course it is right that there should be strong enforcement and that the existing law should be followed through—and promptly. There should not be long delays while sites that should never have been there in the first place get unofficially authorised, as outlined so eloquently today.

However, as a senior police officer speaking on behalf of ACPO, he was also clear that the policing of such issues cannot be tackled solely by increasingly rigorous enforcement. We must tackle the underlying conditions of deprivation and alienation that beset the issue. That is why, as well as following through on what the Secretary of State has already announced and on all the other work to ensure fair treatment for both the settled and the Gypsy and Traveller communities, we are also making sure that we tackle the underlying issues of disadvantage.

I was asked one or two specific questions and, for the most part, I hope that I have dealt with them. I have tackled and explained retrospective planning permission, which will be dealt with in the localism Bill. As far as treating planning applications equally is concerned—some examples were given by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson)—we will have guidance and a light touch, rather than a prescriptive national code overruling local common sense.

I noted a point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). He wanted to know whether we could have a proper land register of public land and assets. Oh, how I wish we could, and how I wish it was possible to settle all such questions. Hopefully, local authorities of all sorts, and the Government, will become more alert to what they own, why they own it and whether they need to, thus proceeding towards a more rational estate.

Direct Democracy Initiatives

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I appreciate this opportunity to speak about direct democracy, and I thank the Minister for attending the debate.

In recent years, we have undeniably seen a mass disengagement from the political process. The figures speak for themselves: former allegiance to political parties has plummeted over the past 15 to 20 years, and turnout at elections has followed a similar trajectory. I believe that the last three general elections had the lowest turnout of any since the second world war, so much so that the Commission on Parliament in the Public Eye said two years ago that no Government could now claim democratic legitimacy. Therefore, it is heartening that the coalition Government have embarked on a programme of reform.

However, whatever changes are brought in, it is key that they are real, not synthetic, and that, at their heart, they have a commitment to reducing radically the distance between people and power. I shall focus on two areas—the recall mechanism and local referendums—and others may add to them.

The new Government have already promised to bring in a recall initiative which, theoretically, would allow voters to get rid of MPs mid-term, or between elections, as happens in several different countries, including Switzerland. Some states in the United States of America have the same mechanism and right. However, the measures proposed by the Government fall far short of genuine recall.

The terms of reference are to be restricted to serious wrongdoing which, as far as I know, has yet to be defined properly. However, even with a definition, it will be for a parliamentary sub-committee—the Committee on Standards and Privileges—to determine whether an MP qualifies for such treatment. Instead of handing power down to voters, which is the whole point of a recall initiative, we would see power handed up to a small group of MPs. That is not by any stretch or interpretation a true recall mechanism. Ironically, it could actually aggregate even more power at the top by handing a tiny group at Westminster the power to rid Parliament of difficult, troublesome MPs.

True recall allows people to sack their representatives, for whatever reason, if a majority have lost confidence in them, and it certainly is not subject to approval by a central authority. The right should exist not just in respect of MPs but at every level: councillors, the Greater London authority, mayors, mayoral candidates, representatives and so on. This country could not be further from that at present.

I accept that this does not happen in practice, but, theoretically, it is possible for a new MP to jet off to the Bahamas the day after the election, delegate all their parliamentary and constituency work to a team of people employed at public expense and return four or five years down the line, probably to be booted out in the next election. It is likely that they would be deselected by their local party; if not, they would have the Whip removed by the central party. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the local people who put them in position would not be represented at all during the entire lifetime of the Parliament. True recall would change all that, and would make politics much less remote and much more responsive. I urge the Minister to look again seriously at the Government’s plans.

My second and final point, before I hand over, relates to local referendums. This, too, is something that the coalition Government have promised to facilitate. In my view, such referendums are absolutely key. If people have pulled away from politics—I do not believe that anyone can really argue with that—it is not because of a lack of interest in politics. Millions and millions of people around the country have signed up to pressure groups, a million people marched against the war in Iraq, and half a million people marched against the ban on hunting. We have endless examples of a very political population.

The reason why people are pulling away from the political process is that it has become far too remote, and that is true at every level of political activity. It is true at the level of the European Union, as has been debated ad nauseam in Parliament itself. It is certainly almost inconceivable to ordinary people that they could influence any decision made at any level in the EU.

Nationally, the equation is only marginally more favourable. In real terms, in the 1,500 or so days between general elections, people are denied any meaningful access to the decision-making process. Local authorities, meanwhile, have been almost completely stripped of their powers; in effect, they have been neutered. There is very little their local electors would expect them to do that they can do.

Direct democracy would provide a direct answer. It is a simple concept: it would allow people to intervene on any local issue at a time of their choosing. Assuming that they have majority support, decisions could be challenged and new ideas could be proposed. The direction of local political activity would be determined by the people most likely to be affected by those decisions.

The Government have said that they will introduce local referendums, but the details remain unknown. They mostly relate to the mechanics: how referendums would be triggered, on what issues could they be triggered, and so on. The really big issue is whether the results of referendums would be binding. It would be a huge mistake if, as some people fear, the proposal is simply to give people the power to force their representatives to debate an issue.

There is an argument that councils would feel obliged to adhere to the results of a local referendum held in their area, but, in reality, that is merely a far-flung hope. We can all reel off endless examples of local authorities ignoring local opinion, hiding behind bureaucratic procedure and so on. In reality, non-binding referendums would be an expensive gesture. We would almost be better off without them, and I say that as someone who is passionately committed to introducing them.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Would he agree that a corollary of having binding referendums is a requirement that the decisions that voters attempt to influence are those that the people on whom they are binding can indeed influence? He referred to the impotence of local government. Would it not be an absolute requirement of binding local referendums that there should be a great deal more flexibility for local governments to fund themselves and spend as they wish?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I strongly agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said. I am thrilled that the coalition Government have already begun a programme of radical decentralisation. I believe that 1,200 targets were imposed on local government in the past 13 years—the figure may be slightly out, but it is thereabouts. The effect is that local authorities cannot do the things the electorate expect them to do. That means they often hide behind that ambiguity when it comes to unpopular decisions, but also that they often get the blame for bad decisions when the fault lies with central Government. I absolutely accept that both processes need to happen at the same time.

Shortly before the election, a major part of the coalition Government—the Conservative party—invited people to join the British Government. It was a message that went down well in some quarters, and one that I certainly welcomed. If we do not introduce binding referendums, we will undermine the very core of our message. It would be almost an insult to voters, who would be told, in effect, that they are not to be trusted with taking decisions that directly affect their lives.

I have set out provisions for genuine recall in my recall of elected representatives Bill, and for binding local referendums in my local referendums Bill. I shall publish them soon, and I hope that Members will support them. More importantly, I hope that the Government will incorporate them in forthcoming legislation.

16:09

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate. It is fundamentally important that we consider ways to revive our moribund democracy. I would go so far as to say that, if one good thing came out of the previous, rotten Parliament, it was a recognition that there is something profoundly wrong with our democratic system and that we need change.

It is not surprising that our democratic system is not working, given that seven out of 10 constituencies are safe seats—one-party fiefdoms—which makes Members of Parliament inwardly accountable and inwardly responsive to party Whips, rather than outwardly responsive to the people. Direct democracy can help us change that in two or three key ways and I am pleased that the Government are toying with some ideas. However, with respect, I fear that Sir Humphrey Appleby and the powers that be in Whitehall fear the full implications of direct democracy and are already trying to water down some of the radical intentions of the coalition agenda.

Open primaries are the most significant way that we can make democracy outwardly accountable and responsive. Instead of leaving it to the party machines and hierarchies in London to decide who gets to be a Member of this legislature, we can have open primaries to throw open the question, particularly in safe seats. If Senator John McCain, a well-known national figure in the United States who has stood for the office of President, is forced to contest the nomination to be the Republican candidate in his home state, Tory, Labour and Liberal MPs in safe seats should be subject to the same process.

We must ensure that open primaries are not open caucuses. They must be full elections involving the entire constituency, rather than just matters of sectional, self-selecting self-interest. We must overcome the problem of the cost. In this country we have had three open primaries: in Totnes and Gosport, and for the Mayor of London. The cost was prohibitive in other constituencies. We must, without resorting to state subsidy, taxpayer-funded politics or, heaven forbid, giving the party chairman the power to decide where open primaries should be held, find a way of allowing people to have a say about who gets to be the candidate in their constituency. A simple way to do that is to piggyback primaries on to pre-existing local ballots and allow people to petition their returning officers to trigger the process.

I hope that the Government listen and get this right, because if they get it wrong it will mean strengthening the power of the big corporate party hierarchies in London, rather than opening up democracy to local people.

The Government need to get two other things right. People should be allowed a direct say in law-making. Rather than contracting out the process to a professional caste of politicians and a priesthood of party managers, we should allow people a direct say. I am delighted that the Government are toying with the idea of a great repeal Bill—a freedom Bill—written by the people. However, I fear that they are not running this project as a wiki Bill, like the wiki Bill on Wikiversity, which is run completely as a crowd-sourced, open-source project. Instead, they are running it as a Government-owned online consultation. The difference is that, if something is genuinely crowd-sourced and the people are allowed a say, it tends to be pretty optimistic and liberal and is not dominated by demands to legalise cannabis, for example. There tends to be a much more angry and illiberal exchange in respect of a project on a Government-owned website. I hope that the Government amend the online architecture of their freedom Bill proposal, replace it with what is available free on the Wikiversity site and try to introduce the latter to the House.

The Government talked about a right of popular initiative, meaning that, instead of leaving it to the Sir Humphrey Applebys and a few Ministers to decide the legislative agenda of the Commons, we should give the people a say. There was a wonderful proposal for a threshold mechanism, under which, if a proposal got a certain number of signatures it would be introduced or at least given time and MPs would be forced to debate and vote on it. I ask the architects of this proposal in Whitehall, again, to be cautious about allowing thresholds for this popular initiative. A far better way of ensuring that the outcome is liberal and inclusive—sunshine politics, rather than reactionary, angry and sectional politics—is to ensure that different proposals have to compete for Floor time in the House of Commons, rather than having to pass a certain threshold. If we allow the threshold mechanism to be used, we would be asking for proposals that, as a liberal, I would feel uncomfortable supporting.

I hope the Government listen to these concerns and ensure that, through the mechanisms they introduce, direct democracy means more liberalism, rather than reactionary illiberalism.

16:14

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful for your chairmanship of this debate, Mrs Brooke. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for calling the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) for chipping in with his thoughts on direct democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park correctly set out some of the problems that we face, including public engagement with Parliament. Some issues with the previous Parliament that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton highlighted are well known, which is why political and constitutional reform is one of this Government’s central features. We need to ensure that people are properly engaged with Parliament and politics—those are not always the same thing—and that we do a much better job than the previous Government did.

Let me respond to the two things that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned: recall and local referendums. I will come to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton later. The prominence given to recall by all three major political parties at the general election reflected its importance. There was consensus among all those parties, particularly off the back of the expenses scandal, that we needed to do something to deal with that issue.

Under the Government’s proposal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park does not think goes far enough, the recall mechanism would be set in motion only if there were, effectively, a trigger—if an MP were engaged in serious wrongdoing. At that point, if 10% of constituents signed a petition, a by-election would be triggered in which the individual would be able to stand and defend their record. Effectively, that would put the decision in the hands of the people.

We decided to do that to deal with specific issues in the previous Parliament, because members of the public were rightly saying, in respect of matters raised with an MP early in the Parliament, “We’ve got an MP who’s been judged to have fallen below the standards we expected, but they can continue sitting in Parliament, taking their salary for the rest of the Parliament and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

My hon. Friend thinks that we should go further. We balanced that right because we do not want this mechanism used as a political tool by political opponents, with Members of Parliament consistently being faced with a recall challenge based on nothing more than the fact that people disagree with them.

[Mr Carswell]

I respect the Minister’s statement that it is important that we should not have a system that allows vexatious attempts against good, legitimately elected MPs, but will he consider the example of Winchester in 1997, when a vexatious attempt was made by the Tories to trigger a judicially sanctioned recall election because they felt that they had lost, unfairly, by two votes? They went on to lose that election by more than 20,000 votes. Surely, we should trust the people, who have pretty good judgment to decide what is and is not a legitimate complaint against a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Harper]

I remember that well, as I suspect my hon. Friend does. I went tramping round the streets of Winchester in that rather thankless by-election.

In his article in the press, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the Californian recall system, through which every governor since Ronald Reagan in 1968 has faced a recall petition. Clearly, most of those petitions were not successful. The state of California is of a significant size, compared with the United Kingdom, and it takes a fair amount of organisation and initiative to even get a recall petition sorted out.

Given the size of a parliamentary constituency and that most hon. Members face significant blocks of Opposition voters, recall could easily turn into a tool used by our political opponents. I will explain in a moment why I think that that would be particularly bad, and I will try to do so in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton will find appealing.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I understand that recall has been successful only once in California, despite all those attempts, precisely for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend during his intervention.

[Mr Harper]

That is right. I hinted at that in my remarks. Let me mention one reason why recall would not be a good idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton wants legislators and those in positions of power to be fearless and to put forward bold ideas—to be able to come up with challenging ideas, demonstrate them and argue for them in public. I think that I have characterised some of his views correctly. Under the recall system that we are talking about, legislators could be subject to recall by their constituents at any moment. If that fact were held over MPs, it would drive away any opportunity to set out bold or challenging ideas that took a while to deliver.

If someone had an idea involving a tough and difficult period with a payback taking some time to come to fruition, and if there were a recall petition hanging over them that could be triggered for political reasons, I suspect that they would be off. People who wanted to bring forward bold and radical ideas would be deterred, and the proposal would have the opposite effect.

[Mr Carswell]

I do not wish to labour the point, but under our proposal, recall would be a two-stage process. The people, rather than a committee of grandees in this place, would decide in a vote whether there should be a recall, and there would then be a by-election. I would rather face the judgment of the good people of my constituency than a committee of grandees in Whitehall.

[Mr Harper]

I understand why my hon. Friend might think that, but Members of Parliament might feel constant pressure. There is always a challenge in politics when putting forward bold ideas and having time to allow them to come to fruition before facing people’s judgment.

Those of us in the business of putting forward such ideas, whether in Government or outside, must make a judgment, and the Government’s view is that it would not be sensible if a recall could be triggered at any time without there having been serious wrongdoing. We have set out what we want to do, and triggering a recall on serious wrongdoing was a policy proposed in the manifestos of all three major parties at the last election. My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park and for Clacton still have some way to go to persuade the Government to change position.

I turn to local government. Reference was made to whether recall should apply to other elected officials. Clearly, we want high standards of behaviour from local councillors, as well as from Members of Parliament. We have announced that we will replace the existing standards regime, which is centralist and leads to vexatious complaints. We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and local colleagues to decide what sort of regime will replace that. My hon. Friends had a meeting with the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation earlier this week, and I know that he will welcome any ideas about what that regime should look like.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I understand what has been said about the need for politicians to be able to make bold statements and to think outside the box, but the recall process would necessarily take many months. The right to trigger a recall would have to be activated and in turn, if that were successful, it would lead to a by-election in which the same candidate—the person who had been recalled—could stand. The process would be lengthy, and the time would give any challenged MP, local councillor, MEP and so on an opportunity to sell their ideas to the electorate. If they failed, they would lose their job, and that would be a consequence of democracy.

I am sure that every hon. Member here can think of individual local councillors who waste public money and deliver almost nothing. There must be a mechanism that allows local people who feel under-represented by councillors in safe wards, and who are given a limited menu of options at elections, to assert themselves and to ensure that they are properly represented. I again urge the Minister to consider including councillors in the recall mechanism.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s clarification.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for this debate. Engagement with the public is vital, particularly now. We need to know that we can hold our elected representatives to account. In respect of the recall mechanism and direct democracy, is there not a need for greater sanctions within the establishment as a whole so that the public can see what goes on in the House and in their councils, and whether they are being correctly dealt with internally, as well as externally?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. I referred to the standards regime and one reason why we will sweep that away is that we do not believe that it works adequately. The Secretary of State said that if councillors are guilty of illegality, sanctions and a system exist to deal with that. If they are guilty of political foolishness, the ultimate sanction is that electors can throw them out. That is why we will change the conduct regime, and we are considering how to do so. I am not sure what my hon. Friend is proposing on specifics, but that is why we will change the system.

In the few minutes remaining, I want to touch on the local referendum issue, which is a little closer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was talking about. We want to give citizens much more say in terms of local referendums than at the moment. We have made a commitment to give local residents the power to trigger local referendums on local issues. That was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery). The issue must be local and the local authority must be able to do something about it.

We intend to include the necessary legal provisions as part of the Decentralism and Localism Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech. That work will be taken forward by the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation. The measures will set out the nature of local referendums and whether and in what circumstances they will be binding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park touched on the extent to which authorities will be bound by the decision. This is a significant step forward. At the moment, local authorities can have referendums, but they, not local people, decide whether to have them. Clearly, my hon. Friend will engage in that debate and consider the Government’s proposals when they are published later this autumn.

Something else that we will do—this was set out in the coalition programme for government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton touched on it—is to ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a Bill that will be debated and voted on in the House.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about how we should deal with the details of that proposal to ensure—this will be music to the ears of the Deputy Prime Minister—that measures that are brought forward are liberal rather than illiberal. We will announce details of that proposal in due course; they are currently being worked on. I will share the views of my hon. Friend with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. We will think about them as we develop our proposals. That is a positive step forward.

My hon. Friend knows that the coalition Government’s programme includes a commitment for open primaries. I heard what he said about how he would like them to operate, and I have taken careful note of that. I will pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister his thoughts about how the debate on what is in the freedom or great repeal bill could be more liberal than the way in which the Government are undertaking it.

My final point picks up on the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley about local government and its scope. I hope that he will be pleased that, to promote devolution of power and greater financial autonomy, we have made a commitment to have a review of local government finance. That is a brave undertaking, given the history of local government finance reviews, but we want to do it because it is clear that unless local authorities are given more control over revenue and money, we cannot shift more power in that direction.

The Government have said that they will have a serious and wide-ranging examination of local government finance and its powers, I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that. It is an important measure to give local authorities more power and responsibility, and will make the ability to have referendums and to engage local people in what local authorities do more meaningful. It is meaningless to have local referendums if the local authority cannot do much in response.

The coalition Government’s package of political and constitutional measures that come under the heading of direct democracy, even if they do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park wants, are a step forward in reconnecting this House and this Parliament with the country and getting the public to feel that they have more ownership of how we do politics.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to ask on the record whether the Minister would be willing to come and meet the newly formed all-party group on direct democracy so that we can continue this discussion.

[Mr Harper]

I would be pleased to accept that invitation.

This has been a good debate, and has provided colleagues with the opportunity to make some good points. I am happy to continue it in a more informal setting so that we may continue to develop these ideas.

Telford (Regeneration)

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

16:29

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Brooke. I am in the Chamber to talk about what I believe to be the most important issue in Parliament—my constituency. Of course, every hon. Member quite rightly thinks the same thing about their own constituency. As hon. Members will know, I represent the new town of Telford that was so designated in the 1960s and is one of the most successful new towns built post-world war two. The town comprises a mix of older communities on the east Shropshire coalfield such as Oakengates, Dawley and Madeley. In the 1960s, a number of new developments were created to infill the area between those towns. In many ways, the community is rooted in east Shropshire, although people have moved in, largely from the west midlands conurbation, when issues such as overcrowding and slum clearance were tackled during the 1960s.

There is a big challenge facing all new towns as a result of the fact that, because they were designated at a particular time, the fabric of the town ages over the same time period. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, significant parts of the new town estates in Telford needed to be regenerated. In addition, the older communities in our town also needed support and investment over time. Therefore, there is a mix of older towns that, as I have said, are focused around mining communities, engineering and heavy industry, much of which has now sadly gone. There are also new town estates that were designed in the 1960s and often based on the Radburn layout where non-traditional design patterns and architectural patterns were used to put housing estates together. That has thrown up a series of challenges that I will touch on in my speech.

I will now run through Telford geographically, going broadly from north to south, touching on the issues confronting each particular community. Before I do so, I will mention two key issues. First, housing has got to be the cornerstone of any regeneration activity. It was right for that to be the case when the new town was designated, and it is right for that to be the case now. There are a large number of people on the housing waiting list in Telford, with over 10,000 people seeking social housing. Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have not built enough social housing in the town and we must address that problem. I do not place blame on any particular Government; we must come together and acknowledge that we need more social and rented housing. That must be the cornerstone of our regeneration strategy.

Secondly, Building Schools for the Future is proving to be particularly successful in Telford, where the Minister will be pleased to know that the BSF programme is going ahead, largely because it has been well put together. The initial bid by the old council was good, as are the schemes being pursued by the existing council. It is a pleasure to say that I support the scheme and welcome the fact that it is continuing and that we will see over £100 million of investment in new schools across Telford. Some schools have already been rebuilt and are proving incredibly popular with pupils and parents. In many communities, those new schools will form the focal point of regeneration activity, which is why I am delighted that the programme is going ahead and will be effective in towns such as Dawley and Stirchley, and right across the borough.

I would now like to canter through some of the local communities and mention one or two of the key issues and challenges facing them. My home town is Oakengates, which is one of the older communities in Telford. I shall begin by saying what an excellent job the chamber of trade is doing in trying to sustain and promote the local economy through its activities and its superb website, visitoakengates.com. I grew up in Oakengates, which has received investment over recent years. The theatre has been refurbished, and there has been a significant amount of housing-led regeneration on former industrial sites throughout the town. Partner agencies have come in, such as the Salvation Army, which redeveloped a new hall that is a fabulous facility. We have also seen investment through the primary care trust and with GPs in new surgeries. However, Oakengates faces continuing challenges that are the same as those confronting many towns. The street environment needs to be improved—I know that the council has been talking to the community about that. The town has serious parking problems, which are dangerous. We must redesign the centre of the town to make it more attractive to retailers and the public, and we must make parking safer.

There used to be a vibrant market, and there are still two or three stalls on market day, but there used to be a lot more. We need to see a revitalised market in Oakengates and in other towns across Telford. Perhaps the Government should go back to the drawing board and think again about how to promote markets, not just in Telford but across the UK, and what more we can do to support their establishment and survival.

In many ways, Oakengates is the centre of the night-time economy in Telford, and CCTV provision must be improved and enhanced. There is also an old, classic building called the Walker Tech. I know it well, but it has fallen into disrepair and is boarded up. It and must be brought back into use as quickly as possible. It is owned by a private developer who I hope we can encourage to bring the scheme forward. The Government must think about how they can encourage developers who own older, empty buildings to bring forward investment and bring classic old buildings, such as the Walker Tech, back into use.

Another area I want to mention is St Georges, which I also know well, as it is where I went to school. Continuing with my theme, there is another classic building in St Georges called the Gower street youth club. It was an old school building but it is now empty. It could be converted into flats to provide high-quality accommodation, but again, that scheme needs to be developed quickly. I gathered a petition of over 300 signatures from people in St Georges who want the building to be brought back into use. We must develop a strategy for new youth provision in St Georges. Regeneration is not only about bricks, mortar and fabric but about sustaining communities. As I have said, youth provision was taken away when the Gower street youth club was closed, and it has never been properly replaced. There are also significant parking issues in St Georges.

I will now briefly mention one of the new town areas—Hollinswood and Randlay. Hollinswood is a classic new town estate based almost on a Radburn-style layout with a road network that is different from a traditional road layout. We need investment in the fabric and in things such as estate roads and footpaths. It is simple: often, regeneration is not about grandiose large schemes but about sustaining the investment that has already been made. In Hollinswood, we need investment in the local centre and in the general infrastructure of the estate.

To the council’s credit, plans for the Randlay centre are extremely good, but we need to get on with them as quickly as possible. The community has been waiting for a long time to see the local centre in Randlay redeveloped. It is a partnership with the private sector; it is a good scheme and it should be moved forward as quickly as possible.

Dawley was the town on which the new town is based. It was called Dawley new town before being redesignated as Telford. Dawley is an old community that has undergone a lot of change. I welcome the investment in Dawley centre even though I have concerns and reservations about the new bandstand in the centre of the town and the reintroduction of traffic to the high street. However, I am open-minded and willing to be proved wrong about my concerns.

I very much welcome the investment going into Dawley, but we must do more, as we need a renewed drive against antisocial behaviour in the high street. I continue to raise that with the police, as it is an ongoing problem. Local residents constantly say to me that it is a serious issue, particularly at night. When they go in to use the town, there are gangs of young people concentrated in the town. We need to divert those people and give them something else to do, but we also need to crack down on antisocial behaviour, which is unacceptable. That must be a priority for the police in Dawley.

We also need the market back in the high street in Dawley on a Friday. Because of the street works, the market has been moved to the adjacent car park. We need to get the market back in the high street as quickly as we can, so that we can support local traders and continue to have a popular market in Dawley.

Stirchley is another new town estate, and is a good example of where Building Schools for the Future will sustain the area and help us to develop a new local centre with a focus. It is a good example of how investment through a project such as BSF can come together with a range of partners—the private sector, retailers and the health service—to remodel a local centre. I look forward to seeing exciting plans relating to Stirchley.

Brookside in my constituency is another new town area that needs investment. The local centre is a mess. The buildings are incredibly unattractive, and the street pattern has turned the area in on itself. It needs to be cleared and redeveloped, and we need to put together an exciting initiative, in partnership with the private sector, if that is to happen. There are serious street drinking problems outside that local centre, and the police need to deal with that effectively.

The Wrekin Housing Trust has been using people engaged in the future jobs fund to progress improvements on the estate. Unfortunately, that programme is coming to an end. More than 20 people have been involved. I would like to think that agencies could look again at how we engage people, through schemes such as the future jobs fund or a replacement for it, to get people active, cleaning up neighbourhoods and receiving training as well. We need Government support to develop a major regeneration plan for the Brookside area.

One of the first major regeneration schemes that we pursued in Telford was at Woodside. I am very proud to have been involved in that project over the years, right from its start. We have done some fantastic work up there. We are now starting to see work progress on the local centre and on the area to the east of the estate, which needs to be redesigned. I would like to hear from the Minister today an ongoing commitment to Woodside. I am sure that he will be able to give one—I hope he will—because the project is the lynchpin of regeneration in southern Telford.

Similarly, I would like the Minister to give a commitment to further investment on Sutton Hill, which was the first new town estate to be built. It has major design and infrastructure needs. There is a big scheme on the anvil to redevelop the centre of the estate, alongside the investment that has been made in the children’s centre and in the new school over recent years. There is a very positive agenda for Sutton Hill, but the local centre needs to be remodelled, and we have to examine the layout of the rest of the estate as well, because regeneration does not just involve the centre. We need to remodel the roadways and the neighbourhoods, because of the design of the estate.

I welcome the work that the police have done in recent weeks to tackle fire starting in Sutton Hill. Someone has been setting fire to vehicles and caravans there. The police have been working very hard on that, with information from the local community, and I very much welcome that. However, there are other issues of antisocial behaviour on Sutton Hill where, at night, young people gather and intimidate others. We need to think about how we police that area and, again, how we divert the people involved and make the environment safe.

I have mentioned a number of new town estates, and one of the big issues on those estates is empty homes, which are often owned by private landlords, who perhaps own one, two or three properties. They are very often absentee landlords who do not look after their properties. The Government need to re-examine how to secure possession of those empty homes, which are owned by a single landlord or small groups of landlords, because they drag an area down very quickly and a whole street can be blighted if one property is empty.

Madeley is a good example of how the private sector can lead regeneration. The scheme in Madeley is excellent, and I congratulate Tesco on the fantastic job that is has done there. The centre has been completely revitalised through a good partnership with Tesco, involving investment in the local street scene, rather than an out-of-town store. Tesco deserves some credit for that.

I now want to discuss Telford town centre, where there are a number of key private sector interests and where the local authority, too, has its offices. There is a real opportunity to transform the environment and create a lively centre with high-quality shopping, entertainment and office and residential development. My concern is that the partners are not producing a comprehensive vision for the area because the owners of the shopping centre—Hark Group Ltd—and the local authority seem to be at odds over the best way to proceed.

The council sold its Malinslee House headquarters to Asda, which is moving out of the shopping centre. I disagreed with that decision, as the original plans for the redevelopment of the Telford centre envisaged the Malinslee House site as a mix of residential, office and small retail units. In my view, that is still the best use of the site. That said, local government means just that—government, not administration. The council has taken its decision democratically, which is fair enough. However, I am concerned that an application by Hark to create a new supermarket and a range of smaller shops and restaurants on the Red Oak car park site has been with the council for some nine months. That application must be determined as soon as possible. Hark invested £450 million when it purchased the Telford shopping centre, and that scheme could provide 400 jobs that the town desperately needs.

I welcome the initiative in the town centre to redevelop the Southwater area, and the council and the Southwater Event Group seem to be working well together. The Telford international centre is, by the nature of its name, a venue of international quality, and we need to support it fully. There is a real opportunity to transform the environment and we should grasp it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this important debate. He is a fair-minded Member of the House, so will he congratulate Conservative-controlled Telford and Wrekin council on the regeneration partnerships that it has already formed and the regeneration not only of wards in his constituency, but of market towns in other parts of the borough? Also, will he put on the record his support for the formation of a local enterprise partnership with Shropshire council and other stakeholders in the county and in the borough, devolving powers from Advantage West Midlands to ensure that rural areas and places such as Telford and Wrekin—urban areas—receive more funding, rather than just urban areas in Birmingham?

[David Wright]

It is good to see my hon. Friend, as I shall call him, here this afternoon. There has been a good record, under both the Labour Administration and the Conservative Administration we have now, of putting together partnerships. Woodside was put together under the Labour Administration and has been very successful. Other partnerships put together by the Conservative-controlled council have also been successful. I do not think there is a need for us to divide up on that. We have a good record over a number of decades of putting together regeneration programmes, which is positive. We are meeting about the local enterprise structures in the next two or three weeks, and I shall be keen to see what the council is proposing on that score.

I am conscious of the time and I wanted to secure from the Minister a commitment to the regeneration programmes that we currently have in Telford through a confirmation from him that existing funding is safe, that schemes will be completed and that budgets through the local government settlement and through the Homes and Communities Agency will be protected. I would like to think that he will agree to commit the HCA to work with the local community on the creation of new regeneration plans for areas such as Brookside, and that he will look positively on proposals that may be made to extend the scope of regeneration activity under way or planned in areas such as Sutton Hill.

Finally, will the Minister take another look at some of the housing issues? Housing will be a central element of our plans to regenerate the town. Will he consider any proposals that may be made to develop more social housing in the town and will he take another look—a serious look—at empty homes and their impact, not just in Telford but throughout the country?

16:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Brooke. I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) on securing the debate, which he has made full use of on behalf of his constituents. In addition, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is also interested in this issue. It is an important one, and I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman put his case.

Regeneration is something to which the Government are absolutely committed, and I was interested and pleased to learn about Telford and Wrekin’s ambitious regeneration agenda and the projects and programmes that were mentioned, including the multi-million pound borough town initiative. That tailored approach to meeting the needs of six individual and distinctively different towns demonstrates the importance of local understanding in developing successful regeneration programmes.

Local people have not only the knowledge but, more importantly, a vested interest in the best sense of that phrase in driving forward the changes needed to improve their communities and areas. That is why the Government are committed to devolving power to neighbourhoods, scrapping regional planning and allowing communities and local councils such as Telford and Wrekin to have much greater control and power over their own destiny. By removing the regional tier of government and abolishing the regional development agencies, neighbourhoods—and their councils and partners, as we heard—will finally be at the very heart of regeneration.

I am conscious, however, that no two areas are the same and that each has its own priorities and faces its own challenges. That was amply demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman. That is why we invited local authorities and business leaders to form local enterprise partnerships. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to finding out the details. My hon. Friend is right that there is a bid from the local authorities and the business community in the Marches to join local authorities in forming exactly such a partnership, with interventions focusing on enterprise, employment, planning and housing, transport and infrastructure, education and skills, sustainability and strategic leadership. I know that the bid picks up on a number of those factors, including housing, education and skills, which were referred to during the debate.

Those partnerships are key regeneration vehicles. They will empower local areas to provide the strategic leadership needed to drive economic growth and enterprise and to meet local priorities. It will give local authorities, businesses and the voluntary sector the opportunity to join in rationalising existing arrangements and focus economic activity at the local level. Those reforms, together with the new general power of competence, will make it easier for local authorities to bring about real change and drive forward the regeneration that their communities want.

Alongside that more permissive neighbourhood-based approach to delivering regeneration, we are developing a new way of thinking. We need to get away from the idea that things can be fixed only through Government intervention. The Government are not always needed to fix things. We need to get into the habit of finding local solutions to local problems, driven by local people. However, that does not mean that the Government are entirely out of the picture; of course we have a responsibility to provide communities with the right incentives, tools and information that they need if we want them to participate actively in the regeneration and economic growth of their local areas.

That is why, in addition to the introduction of local enterprise partnerships, the Government are establishing a £1 billion regional growth fund to provide support for projects that offer significant potential for sustainable economic growth that can create new private sector employment. As hon. Members know, the fund will operate for two years and will play a central role in rebalancing the economy in those regions where, historically, there may have been some reliance on public sector spending. Proposals for that could come from both private and public bodies—and, I hope, private-public partnerships. I am sure that local enterprise partnerships will play a key role in that process.

I am conscious that the spending review dominates a great deal of thinking at this time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt its results.

[Mark Pritchard]

The local enterprise partnership submission to the Government from Shropshire, Telford, Wrekin, Herefordshire, the Marches and business partners makes various recommendations and requests. One relates to the Homes and Communities Agency, which has significant assets in Telford and Wrekin. I hope that the Government will look carefully and favourably on allowing HCA assets to come to the LEP in order that regeneration can take place locally.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of that ambition, and Ministers in my Department and in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will want to consider the bid carefully. I am glad that the LEPs are ambitious in such matters. We will obviously need to consider the detail of the bid, which was received only recently. I am sure that the growth of LEPs, together with the regional grown fund, will be of benefit for exactly that sort of consideration.

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in housing and housing growth in Telford. He spoke of the shortage of affordable housing in the borough. Areas such as Telford, where there appears to be a recognition of the need for housing and a willingness to grow, are precisely the areas that will stand to benefit from the Government’s new homes bonus scheme, particularly in relation to the need for social or other affordable housing. Funding at 125% will be a particular incentive for such authorities. I am sure that that will be a material benefit.

I understand that Telford was one of the first authorities in the west midlands to develop a local investment plan with the HCA, in which it set out its key housing priorities for the next three years. As we have heard, it is focusing on town centre renaissance and regeneration, including the projects referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and the establishment of a housing and regeneration partnership board with the borough council and the HCA—another good example of community working.

In relation to the specifics of Woodside raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am aware that Telford and Wrekin council is currently working out proposals for the next phase of the project, including the provision of affordable homes, open space and the remodelling of existing areas. We will of course consider those proposals with interest. I hope that the levers that we have will encourage the council. Similarly, in relation to Sutton Hill, the first phase is under way, focusing on the local centre benefiting from HCA investment, match-funded by the local authority, and the strategy for future phases is being considering further by Telford and Wrekin council. Again, we look forward to seeing its proposals.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned empty housing; he made a fair point. It is still a problem in various parts of the country, and local authorities have a key role in identifying empty homes and working with owners to bring them back into use. The Government have given a commitment to explore a range of measures to bring empty homes back into use, and we began the process in the summer and autumn as outlined in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s structural reform plan. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen that plan; it is available on the website. Again, the power of general competence gives a further potential lever for local authorities to use in that regard.

I turn to the question of markets. As a local councillor, I had a spell as chairman of my borough council’s markets committee. It was a fascinating period of my political life. Markets make an important contribution to the local economy. We are alert to the matter, and my fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), is working on the matter and will shortly be issuing further proposals. We hope to work with the market and retail sectors, giving advice and support for existing markets and encouraging new ones. The Government can work with the retail sector to encourage such things. The hon. Gentleman has made a timely intervention on that topic, and we are endeavouring to take it on board.

I look forward in due course to finding out more about Telford. I have done my best to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for having drawn those points to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

17:00

Sitting adjourned.

Investment in the Further Education Estate

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

On 24 May the Government announced that £50 million of re-prioritised Train to Gain funding would be invested in the further education infrastructure to support the development of new college facilities. On the 21 June, I informed the House that though the Government could not undo the previous mismanagement of the FE capital programme, they fully recognised the importance of ensuring that the teaching and learning facilities in our further education colleges be modern and fit for purpose.

That is why I made it clear that the Government would support those colleges who had not previously benefited significantly from public investment and so the £50 million would be targeted at those further education colleges that had received less than £5 million in total grant support since 2001 from the Learning and Skills Council.

I am pleased to inform Parliament that the Skills Funding Agency has today written to those colleges informing them that they will each receive up to a £225,000 renewal grant. The chief executive has informed 21 of these colleges that in addition to receiving a renewal grant they will also receive an additional enhanced renewal grant taking their total grant up to £1 million. This will help colleges modernise their facilities, giving them a much needed boost at a time when education could not be more important. Finally, the Skills Funding Agency is working with a further five colleges to resolve affordability issues so that they too can receive capital investment.

The Skills Funding Agency received 92 applications which were assessed in a robust and transparent process using three key criteria: the existing condition of the college estate and its facilities; proposed benefits to learners; and how the projects would contribute to the regeneration of their local communities.

This Government are committed to open and transparent decision making and accordingly the assessment exercise was scrutinised by representatives of the Association of Colleges who were satisfied that the selection process had been conducted properly and run smoothly.

All recipients of the enhanced renewal grant are expected to begin construction shortly with completion anticipated in September 2011, allowing learners to benefit from these new facilities in the 2011 academic year.

In addition I expect colleges to leverage additional private resources and I am pleased to inform the House that it is estimated that the £50 million allocated by the Government will produce a total investment in the further education estate of over £230 million. I am sure the House will agree that this investment will make a significant difference to learners across the country.



Please visit the Skills Funding Agency website (http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk) for a full list of successful colleges.

Thurrock Thames Gateway Urban Development Corporation

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I am today announcing that from 1 April 2012 the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (TTGDC) will cease operation and become part of Thurrock borough council, although a decision on the treatment of the assets currently held by TTGDC will be made at a later stage.

Last year, the previous Administration undertook a quinquennial review of the development corporation’s performance from inception. Following that review, it was decided that the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) should be transferred into the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). I have reviewed this decision and have concluded that this should not be implemented—it was a centralising measure that would have further distanced local people from decisions about the future of their area. In addition, the consultation undertaken as part of the review showed clearly that there was no local support in favour of this decision.

In deciding the way forward for TTGDC, I have considered the coalition commitments to cutting the costs of quangos and increasing accountability, and to localism. I have concluded that it is right TTGDC should transfer to the local council. This will chime with our approach to the Thames Gateway generally, where I am decentralising strategic oversight to local political leaders. This will lead to a number of benefits including:

maintaining the momentum of private sector investment;

enabling efficiency savings to be made through shared services;

achieving value for money by limiting public sector investment necessary to enable maximum private investment;

strengthening local control over regeneration and the operation of planning responsibilities, and;

strengthening the council’s capacity to drive regeneration.

In order to affect these changes TTGDC will move into the council’s premises by March 2011, enabling some efficiency gains to be realised quickly. TTGDC will work more closely with the council during 2011-12, before ceasing independent operation from 1 April 2012. It will be formally wound up following adoption of its final report and accounts later that year. The treatment of the assets currently held by TTGDC will be considered as part of the detailed arrangements for the transfer.

Defence Fixed Telecommunications Services

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I wish to inform the House that my Department has recently extended our public-private partnership contract with BT Group to provide the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Services (DFTS). DFTS provides secure and survivable wide area network voice, data and video telecommunications services to defence users in the UK and abroad, and also to defence and industry partners including the National Air Traffic Systems and the Met Office. The services provided under the contract are vital to the daily operation of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, both in peace and at war.

The current contract, which expires in July 2012, has been extended for three years until 2015 under existing contractual provisions. The extension is valued at about £810 million. It is expected to achieve net operational and financial benefits in excess of £90 million and, through taking full advantage of BT’s 21st century network programme, will lead to improvements in performance and security which would otherwise be unachievable. A number of impending obsolescence issues will also be resolved.

Work is under way to re-compete the contract before this extension comes to an end in 2015. This will form part of a major overhaul in the way the MOD procures and manages voice, data, video and information and communication technology services, and will reflect the outcome of the strategic defence and security review.

Equine Infectious Anaemia

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I wish to inform the House that on the afternoon of 6 September 2010 the chief veterinary officer for the United Kingdom confirmed equine infectious anaemia (EIA) in one horse in Northumberland following importation from the Netherlands.

A single premises is currently under disease control restrictions and the infected horse has been humanely destroyed.

The infected animal arrived in a group of six horses. The other five horses have tested negative for the disease. There are a further 11 horses on the premises which are also being tested for the disease. As part of our control measures we will be undertaking a detailed epidemiological investigation. We have identified a bridleway adjacent to the premises. We have agreed with the local authority that they will put in place notices at relevant points leading to the bridleway advising horse owners not to exercise their horses in this area.

The risk of further spread among horses is considered by experts to be very low, but this will be kept under review pending further epidemiological investigation. Expert advice from the Health Protection Agency is that EIA is not a risk to human health and that there is no evidence that this incident presents a risk to the local community.

This is the second case of equine infectious anaemia in recently imported horses this year. Prior to 2010 there had been no confirmed cases since 1976. This shows the success of our post-import testing regime. This was an apparently healthy horse carrying a notifiable disease that we are keen to keep out of Great Britain.

Extradition Review

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing to Parliament the Government’s plans to review the UK’s extradition arrangements.

The coalition’s programme for Government document published on 20 May, stated that

“We will review the operation of the Extradition Act—and the US/UK extradition treaty—to make sure it is even-handed”.

This announcement sets out how we propose to do this.

There are a number of areas of the UK’s extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The Government understand that these are long-standing concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK’s extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. These issues are:

breadth of Secretary of State discretion in an extradition case;

the operation of the European arrest warrant, including the way in which those of its safeguards which are optional have been transposed into UK law;

whether the forum bar to extradition should be commenced;

whether the US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced;

whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence.

The review will be conducted by a small panel of experts who we are now seeking to appoint. We expect the review to report by the end of the summer 2011.