Migrants: Channel Crossings

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the last thing that the Government want is for children to be sent across in order to bring their families across. We do not want children to act as a pull factor for people to make these unsafe journeys. We do not intend to change that principle.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers and she seemed to imply that the Dublin regulation appeared to be the responsibility of those claiming asylum and refugees. Does she not understand that it is in fact burden-sharing between countries, which have an obligation—we have an obligation—to protect those who seek asylum? The House would find it helpful if she could give a more adequate answer than she has so far.

In the Minister’s Statement yesterday, when my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark raised this point with her, she spoke about the various agencies that were working together and co-ordinating, such as Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, the coastguard and the National Crime Agency. How many people smugglers, who bring people into the country and put them in danger, have been prevented from doing so? How many of those criminals have been detained, and how many have been prosecuted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the last question first, I will try to give the noble Baroness details. I am not sure that I will be able to obtain the figures, but I will certainly try. She made a point about the Dublin regulation being an obligation or burden on the person claiming asylum. In fact, as she knows, it is an EU-wide agreement that asylum seekers will claim in the first safe country they reach. To suggest that they should do it any other way is dangerous to the lives of those people.

Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that this is essential good responsible planning from a Government in case there is no deal. Would it not then have been more helpful to Parliament as a whole had the Prime Minister not pulled the expected votes last week, so that Parliament could have voted on whether it considered no deal an acceptable option at all?

[Lord Bates]

The responsible thing to do would have been for Her Majesty’s Opposition to support the deal on the table. Then we would not need these no-deal statutory instruments.

Asylum Seekers: Removal

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a gross exaggeration of the fact. The noble Lord conflates two things, which are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s advice to people travelling for holidays and other reasons and our obligations under the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. He asks about indefinite detention. There is no indefinite detention. Most cases are sorted out within four months. As for people being deported, the FCO does not advise against travel to the whole of the countries the noble Lord mentions—Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan. It only advises against travel to parts of those countries. Also, when we send people back who have no legal right to be here, we do so with the humanitarian considerations that I have outlined in mind.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on her comment about humanitarian considerations. How is an assessment of individual safety undertaken if someone is being removed to another country? I refer in particular to their political activities, their gender or their sexual orientation. When someone is returned to another country, what follow-up is undertaken to ensure that they are indeed safe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, the UK bases its decisions on two conventions, the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. If, for example, an LGBT person was to be sent back to a country or to an area in a country where they would be persecuted for their sexuality, we would not send them back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I apologise for coming back to the noble Baroness, but this is a point for clarification. I do not have a dictionary to hand, but I think that she has confused the word “indefinite” with “for ever”. All the word “indefinite” means is that there is no time limit. Does that mean that she is now willing to set a time limit so that detention would not be indefinite?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The word “indefinite” means for all time.

Economy: Budget Statement

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, today’s debate takes place against a backdrop of huge uncertainty for the future of this country. I listened to the Minister with great care, but I suspect that my analysis of the Budget is somewhat different from his; I do not share his great enthusiasm for some of the measures he spoke of. We have come a long way from the Prime Minister’s mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” because, under the stewardship of the Government, no one has a clue what Brexit will mean or of its implications for the economy. Yet again, we are told that it is crunch time, but today’s Cabinet did not even discuss the so-called deal; we are advised that there is “cautious optimism”—whatever that means.

At one time the Government had what they called a long-term economic plan. They said that it would make public services more efficient, ensure that work would pay, and they promised it would make our economy more resilient. To provide this, we would all need to tighten our belts through an extended period of austerity. Times would be tough, but we were all in it together, and it would be worth it as we emerged into the promised bright economic future. Now, however, it is clear that the ideological commitment to austerity has failed our country both economically and socially. It has brought misery to communities, families and individuals.

It is also clear that it has failed politically, with Theresa May telling her party’s conference that, “Austerity has ended”. But yet again, she was addressing the internal problems of the Conservative Party rather than those of the nation. The Prime Minister needs to shore up her support with her own MPs, many of whom defend the ideology of austerity but are unable to justify it to struggling constituents. So, with that long-term economic plan now abandoned, the Chancellor had to deliver a Budget, boxed in by that quite desperate political pledge, when he wanted to take a more pragmatic, longer-term approach. This was evident at last week’s Treasury Select Committee, where the Chancellor displayed a more realistic pragmatism than the Prime Minister. He advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction rather than an ideological commitment to austerity.

Let us examine the detail of the Budget. The OBR forecasts are just slightly better than last year, although it warns of slowing growth in business investment, and unsecured debt rising as a proportion of household income. It recognises that inflation remains slightly higher than was forecast, and has revised down its growth predictions. Also, while employment has marginally increased, there has been no significant improvement in wage growth. It is hardly a rosy picture. As one commentator concluded, the Chancellor,

“claims strong growth, but it’s mostly froth”.

However, the reduced borrowing forecast from the OBR provided flexibility for the Chancellor and more money to draw on for this year. But it is described as a “gamble” by the independent IFS, given that the OBR could easily reverse that decision next year. This would leave the Chancellor in a pretty tricky situation. He is unlikely to reimpose austerity, so he would have two options: increase borrowing or raise taxes. Despite that warning, the Chancellor has chosen to spend rather than save, with decisions predicated on a smooth Brexit and a two-year transition phase. But does that spending help those who need it most or provide a coherent strategic approach to strengthen the economy?

Back in June, we welcomed the announcement of additional funding—£20 billion—for the NHS, which is repeated in this Budget. But it is now clear that other public services will pay the price. Day-to-day public service spending, outside health, is 19% lower than in 2010-11, and is set to stay broadly flat between now and 2023-24. No wonder the IFS has described the situation as unsustainable, with the likelihood of tax rises. In addition, despite extra funding for the NHS, how much of this could end up spent on existing loans and deficits?

Last year, the NHS in England overspent the Government’s budget by £4.3 billion, while trusts owe £7.8 billion in loans. That is almost £12 billion, just under 60% of the new money the Government have announced. Meanwhile, decisions on non-NHS budgets for social care, public health and training are being parked until the spending review. How can we possibly address the crisis in social care unless we look at these issues together and set out a broader strategic plan?

On education, one of the most depressing announcements in the Budget was the £400 million schools funding for—here I quote the Chancellor—those “little extras”. This is barely more than 10% of the £3.5 billion cut from education since 2010. We are still seeing a cut in pupil funding, so however clever the Government think they are being with the figures, teachers know the real impact in our schools. It continues post school, with investment also lacking in skills and training. It is not just the futures of today’s pupils that the Government are stifling, it is all our futures if we fail to properly educate and train the young people that we need to build the society of tomorrow.

The Government have talked of devolving powers and responsibility, but it is really about passing the buck because those who are given that responsibility can operate only within the financial constraints handed down by the Government. Local councils, having already borne much of the brunt of so many austerity cuts, are being hit again with reductions next year of a further £1.3 billion, leading to a funding gap of £7.8 billion by 2025. Prisons, meanwhile, face cuts of £510 million through to 2023 on top of the 21% reductions since the start of this decade. Moreover, unprotected departments will still face real day-to-day cuts of 2.9% per person through to 2024.

Elsewhere, the Government are not even trying. There was not a single penny in the Budget for regular policing where the impact of cuts continues to be felt in all of our communities. With the loss of 21,000 staff, 999 calls are not being responded to and the police are having to make decisions about the crimes they can or cannot investigate. We are all paying the price because of the lack of resources.

Then there is a sleight of hand in other areas, from defence to pothole repairs, where new money does not extend beyond a year. Does the Minister really understand the depths of frustration of police officers, teachers, those working in social care and other public servants? Pushed to the brink, they are unable to fulfil their responsibilities because of the failed austerity policies of this Government. We see a lack of strategy for welfare, a lack of strategy for health and care, a lack of strategy for education and skills, and a lack of strategy for defence, roads and policing, along with a lack of anything resembling a strategic vision for the future of our country. This seems to be a blatant attempt to apply sticking plasters to open wounds.

The Government have made much of their plans to reverse the intended cuts to welfare benefits, but in reality it is only a quarter of the £12 billion-worth of cuts planned by 2020. The other 75%, as announced in 2015, remain the Government’s policy, with half the amount yet to be rolled out impacting directly on families. Not only does the benefits freeze remain, but the tax cuts will cost far more than the changes being made to universal credit. As demonstrated by the Resolution Foundation, those tax cuts will see 84% of gains go to the top half of earners in the country, with 37% going to the top decile alone. When you take the tax cuts and universal credit changes together, the top 10% of households will see a 14 times greater benefit in cash terms than the bottom 10%.

The impact of austerity may not have reached Downing Street, but it has reached millions of our citizens, including many in low and medium-paid employment. For those workers, pay packets are not expected to return to pre-crisis levels until the end of 2024. Any extra money in their pockets is welcome, given the hit that they have already taken, but the balance is wrong. This Budget has failed to live up to the anti-austerity hype. In reality, there will be no meaningful end to austerity for hard-working people and their families.

Where are we now? Looking at this Budget alongside the disorderly approach to Brexit, it feels as though the Government are taking a blind corner at speed. In proclaiming the end of austerity but failing to offer or deliver any alternative other than disjointed giveaways, the Government have destroyed their own self-proclaimed assertion of economic competence. They have abandoned that long-term economic plan with nothing credible in its place. Talk of an emergency Budget in the event of a no-deal outcome inspires little confidence that Ministers are prepared for what could happen to the economy and to our public services in such a situation. Indeed, are they at all prepared for any kind of Brexit?

The principle objective of the Government appears to be their own survival, with short-term decisions that do nothing for the longer-term future of public services or the economy. Paul Johnson from the independent IFS has said:

“If I were a prison governor, a local authority chief executive or a head teacher, I would struggle to find much to celebrate. I would be preparing for more difficult years ahead”.


He could have said much the same about a parent or a carer. The first priority of a Government to their citizens is security and safety. But they must also offer hope and optimism—that the future will be brighter; our children will have greater opportunities; hard work, training and education will pay off; taxes will be fair and public services good; and that when things go wrong there is a reliable safety net and support. But the Government have spectacularly failed even to acknowledge this, and to understand how their policies, and lack of competence and direction impact on that hope and optimism.

This has to change. Anything less is a dereliction of duty. We should start by getting the Government not just to talk of ending austerity, but to offer a new, strategic, open and forward-looking approach that invests in our people and economy and, most of all, gives a genuine reason to be optimistic for the future.

Visas: Certificates of Sponsorship

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I know that the Government have been engaging with the sector. I shall double-check with the talent unions and if they have not been engaged with I shall make that suggestion.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that we are working hard to understand this. She is sure that advice is given to our embassies abroad and that we are looking for a way forward. Does she not understand that, while they are working hard to understand it and looking for a way forward, this is having a devastating effect on the cultural life of the country and an impact on the economics? The organisations that are expected to bring artists over, but at the last minute find they are unable to do so, have an economic deficit in their accounts as well. The noble Baroness sounds a bit complacent. I hope she can move with some urgency to resolve this as soon as possible.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not complacent at all. I recognise completely the value that the entertainment industry gives to society and, of course, the economic value. We are working through a solution that will help those people entering through Ireland. It is predominantly an Irish issue.

Overseas Aid: Charities and Faith-based Organisations

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on securing what has been an impressive debate. I very much support her choice of subject, as it provides your Lordships’ House with an opportunity to reflect on action, on progress to date and on what else can be done to ensure the best outcomes.

It was also a pleasure to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord McNicol. Not only was it an excellent speech, but the fact that he made his maiden speech in the same week he was introduced to your Lordships’ House indicates that he will waste no time at all in getting to grips with his new role. I look forward to him playing an active and positive role and to his future contributions. I suggest perhaps that he might save his bagpipes for future Labour Lords’ curry nights, which might be more appropriate.

I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will be replying to today’s debate, because he has form on this issue. None of us can have forgotten, as we followed him on Twitter around the world how, having taken leave from your Lordships’ House, he marched his way towards Athens—I think it was Athens that he walked to, and I see the noble Lord nodding. It was the highest service he could give. There are two pillars of what charity organisations, faith-based organisations, voluntary organisations and NGOs are about. One is trying to raise funds, and the other is that campaigning role of drawing attention to the issues that you mean you have to raise funds as a way to try to resolve them. The noble Lord is the most appropriate person in government to reply to today’s debate.

My last position in government, so far, was at the Cabinet Office and included being the Minister responsible for charities in the voluntary sector and social enterprises. Like so many in your Lordships’ House, I have been involved in the charity and NGO sectors for a number of years in different ways. Today, we have heard from noble Lords across the House of their involvement, and I suspect that if we spoke to any Member, we would hear very similar stories of their engagement in different kinds of organisations of all shapes and sizes.

One of the things that struck me in my role as a Minister was both how vast and how diverse the sector is, in terms of organisation size, whether they employ staff, have volunteers or a mix of both and the services they deliver and campaigns they run. There is also the role of those who support these organisations. I was struck by how people were so very generous with their time, money and expertise, without which these organisations would be unable to function.

Over decades, across the developing world the UK has maintained a proud tradition of supporting those in need and tackling global challenges head on. The public continue to be generous. Close to 40% of the UK’s aid spending is delivered through multilateral organisations and groups formed by intergovernmental organisations which have a high level of public recognition. However, as we have heard today, there is so much less awareness of the excellent work of smaller charities, NGOs and faith-based organisations in this field.

I am sure that I am not alone in knowing of small organisations that raise funds through their churches and local communities to provide schools, teachers and medical support, for example, in some of the poorest places in the world. By targeting their limited resources, they can contribute to saving and improving lives. Some take on the work themselves through volunteers who commit time and expertise. Others fundraise to support paid professionals to deliver services. The delivery models differ, but the objectives remain the same.

In recent years, the Government have promoted funding initiatives to support the work of charities in delivering aid overseas. The Government must rise to the challenge to ensure that these schemes are accessible and open to charities and organisations of all sizes. At the same time, they need to ensure proper accountability and the effective use of that funding.

The UK Aid Connect initiative requires organisations to construct their own consortiums prior to bidding, but the effect of that is to gear the scheme much more towards larger charities and NGOs that have the resources and experience to form such groups to navigate the process. I remember in my role as Minister talking to some of the organisations that were getting together to form these consortiums. The amount of time, energy and effort it took to bring the organisations together, to get common policies and to fill in the forms could be very difficult. So we should do more to make it a process that does not remove the accountability or the good governance that we need but also does not put onerous barriers in the way that prevent the best, in a sense, becoming the enemy of the good and prevent us getting the right applications when we need them.

Small charities can make an enormous contribution to developmental goals, but UK aid must be genuinely open to them. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lord McNicol. Can the Minister say something about the steps that the Government are taking to help smaller NGOs and charities to apply for UK aid funding, including from UK Aid Connect? That would be quite helpful, as there is this barrier for small organisations.

Similarly, the Small Charities Challenge Fund, which I think other noble Lords mentioned and which forms part of UK Aid Direct, provides grants of up to £50,000 to organisations with an annual income of £250,000 or less. I welcome the fact that the Government have earmarked certain funds specifically for those small charities but, again, can the Minister provide some additional information on this? I fear that it could well be those organisations at the higher end of the scale, while the small organisations who perform low-level but equally valuable projects find it difficult to apply because they do not have the scale in order to do so. Any information on that would be helpful.

If the Government are to be successful, as has been indicated, in engaging with smaller charities, they need to understand and know precisely what proportion of the UK aid budget is spent supporting these smaller organisations and also to identify the outcomes from such organisations. It is not the case that just because an organisation is small, local and maybe more mobile that it is automatically providing better outcomes. The Government need to look at that assessment of outcomes. My noble friend Lord McNicol identified that about 36% of UK aid is delivered through multilateral organisations, but much of this is through the larger NGOs and those much larger intergovernmental organisations. Is there any kind of estimate of what proportion of multilateral aid is delivered through small charities, using that definition that is used by DfID of £250,000?

On the issue of transparency, I want to say something about the £1 billion Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred to. The fund is a significant part of the ODA budget, but it has quite a secretive nature and we get little information about how it is spent. Can the Minister say something about the fund, including whether those smaller organisations—charities, NGOs and faith-based organisations—have had access to that fund and been able to secure funding?

The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is crucial: for the public to continue their support of charities and the voluntary sector, there has to be trust and confidence. They are only able to undertake the work that they do, which is valuable and often essential, when the public, our Government and the Governments and civic society in the countries they work in have confidence that they are working to the highest possible standards. That means that the strong ethical values and principles that brought them into being has to be the focus of their work and reflected at every level of the organisation and in all they do. What that does not mean—this is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, very eloquently identified—is that ideological views should in any way override public policy, particularly in the areas of HIV, reproductive health and family planning.

But neither does it mean that everything has to be undertaken by volunteers. Whatever the size of the organisation, it has the same responsibility to its staff as does any organisation. Staff in this sector are entitled to decent wages and working conditions and a safe working environment. That means that there is a role not just for the Charity Commission but for the Government, particularly with regard to the governance and oversight of how such organisations operate.

That responsibility also has some limits. When I was the Charities Minister, I disagreed profoundly with Oliver Letwin MP, who was then drafting the Tory party manifesto on limiting the campaigning role of charities—even to the point that he declared that charities which received funding from government, even for service delivery, should not campaign on policy issues. That is an extraordinary thing to require. I took completely and totally the opposite view. If charities are involved in service delivery, for example, and particularly if they use government money, and they identify how an issue can be better resolved or dealt with, they have an obligation to say so. Whether they receive any government funding or not should be completely and utterly irrelevant. Governments should never use funding as a way of gagging legitimate debate.

If we always want to improve public policy, NGOs and other organisations working in the field have expertise, sending back information and providing information to government. If government is not listening to campaigns for better healthcare—whether it is reproductive health, HIV, safe access to health facilities, or safe food and water—it is right for those organisations to campaign on these issues, and receiving funding for service delivery should not prevent that. To pursue that route would be a bit like putting our head in the sand: “We know best; we are delivering; it does not matter if it can be improved or not”.

Unfortunately, much of that manifesto and that way of thinking found its way into legislation in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. I have no difficulty whatever with transparency, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the very legitimate campaigning role of charities. I draw attention to the fact that, when the Minister was marching to Athens—I do not know how many pairs of trainers he got through en route—a key part of that was drawing attention to the issues he was raising funds for.

As I began my speech today, I commented that we should recognise, with some pride, the UK’s role, through decades, as a world leader in aid, whether it is immediate humanitarian aid in the wake of any kind of disaster or rebuilding communities that have been devastated by conflict. We accept responsibility and want to contribute, and I think the public do as well. We should therefore be enormously proud of the UK’s determination to tackle such global injustices, and proud of the British public, who want and expect us to contribute.

Too often, people think of charities as somehow well-meaning amateurs. We are way beyond that. The roles charities large and small play, and the professionalism they bring to the work they offer is exceptional—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, nodding; she has experience here—and it should be recognised as such. However, that does not negate that government also has a role, particularly in governance and oversight.

Brexit: UK Passports

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is all relative in your Lordships’ House.

It is not the case that we are going from 28 countries to one country because, of course, we need a passport to go to any country. As to choosing the colour, I have thought about this, and people can have any colour passport that they wish—they just need to buy a passport cover. As for which colour the noble Lord might like, I have looked at different colour passports and there are some rather nice yellow ones. One has a picture of SpongeBob SquarePants, but the noble Lord might prefer the one with the bird on it. Unfortunately, the bird is Tweetie Pie.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me on the issue of citizenship, as raised by the noble Lord, regarding the onward movement of UK citizens in Europe following Brexit. It is the question that I asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the Prime Minister’s Statement this week. In the withdrawal agreement published in February, Article 32 makes it clear that there will be no onward movement for UK citizens, thus disadvantaging UK citizens post Brexit, but in the more recent update of the same document, Article 32 has completely disappeared. The document goes from Article 31 to Article 33 and makes no reference to the onward movement of UK citizens, so we really do not know where we are. Are the Government still negotiating? Is there a possibility that they will go back to the table, renegotiate and that UK citizens might have the same benefits post Brexit as before? Or have they just conceded the point and did not want to put that in the document?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness might have asked that question in the following Question but I am quite happy to deal with it in this one. I understand that my noble friend the Leader of the House is writing to the noble Baroness on this subject. Of course, such detail is subject to negotiation, but it is in the interest of both the UK and the EU for there to be free movement of UK citizens to other EU states.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I do not think the noble Baroness has quite got the point I made. The updated document contains issues that are subject to negotiation and issues that have been agreed. What has happened is that that article has disappeared from the document entirely. What does that mean?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It means that it will be subject to negotiations between this country and the EU. The noble Baroness has asked me about a specific point and, as well as my noble friend the Leader writing to her, I shall follow it up.

Modern Slavery: Indian Supply Chains

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, part of the pressure is from the public, because the public are more and more concerned that their clothes are produced ethically—or whatever goods and services. The Home Secretary can apply for a court injunction requiring businesses to comply. If they still refuse, they will be liable to an unlimited fine for contempt of court.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise how weak her answers sound? In response to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, she said that it is for NGOs to keep a list; to the noble and learned Baroness she said that the public have to put on pressure. There has to be a little bit more action from the Government. They have this requirement, so they have to get behind it to make sure it happens. We understand, as we heard earlier, that the Government set their face against any statutory regulation in this regard, but will the Minister tell us what action the Government will now take to do their utmost to ensure that these companies register and understand the risk in their supply chain, as has been highlighted by the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which recognises that many companies just are not looking at this and taking it seriously? The Government have to step up to the plate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did not absolve the Government of responsibility by saying that it is up to the NGOs to produce a list. I outlined the difficulties of producing a list, because of filtering by turnover size. The idea of public pressure is a strong one. In addition, I outlined the remedies available to the Home Secretary, which include applying for a court injunction requiring businesses to comply. They are liable to an unlimited fine for contempt of court if they do not.

Personal Statement

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Chief Whip will have heard the House. An apology from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, is perfectly sufficient.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It was a minor discourtesy, of which any of us can be guilty on occasion.

Police Commissioners

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the reason for a cap is to stop precepts from getting completely out of hand in terms of the amount that local people might be asked to pay. The advice to police is that there are further efficiencies to be made in policing, as acknowledged by HMICFRS. There are investments in technology and things such as shared services that the police can look at across the piece. However, it is up to the local PCC to determine the best level of funding for the area and what type of investments it wishes to make.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not just another example of the Government passing the buck? The police are under enormous financial pressure, and every county in this country will say that they do not see police officers as often as they used to and that numbers are falling. It is hardly surprising that, after seven years of real-term cuts, we have fewer officers per head of the population today than we have had at any time since records began. Instead of saying that it is a matter for the police force or PCCs, will the Government accept responsibility and give the funding required? When the Minister says that these technologies are needed and investment must be made, we have to put the money in first to see the benefit of investment. Will the Government step up to their responsibilities and adequately fund our police force?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government certainly accept their responsibilities. The right honourable Member in the other place, Nick Hurd, visited every police force in England in the run-up to this. The NPCC and the APCC called for £440 million of extra funding in 2018-19, with additional CT funding on top. They called for an extra 5,000 front-line officers for proactive policing by 2020. If all forces delivered the level of productivity benefits of mobile working of the best forces, the average officer could spend an hour a day extra on the front line. That has a potential to create the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers across England and Wales. In addition, the police have reserves of £1.6 billion to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not sure whether the noble Baroness means a reasonable figure for reserves.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Yes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the Labour Front Bench for answering the noble Baroness’s question. I think that 5% of the revenue budget is deemed a reasonable level of reserves. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and work that out quickly.