Police Dogs and Horses

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) for sponsoring the debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed on an issue that is close to many of our hearts.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said, I am a dog lover. I have two dogs, and I never thought I would see the names of Oz and Buzz in Hansard, but they will be in there now—my followers on Instagram and Twitter will know who Oz and Buzz are. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is right that our pets are part of our family. I am a hardcore dog lover. My current dogs are both Labradors, but I have also experienced the joy of being a basset hound owner, which got a lot easier when I realised that bassets do not have owners—they have staff. Life got a lot easier after Bertie and I worked that out.

I will slightly reverse how these debates normally work. I will address some of the issues, but I will outline the journey of travel as I see it and what I think we can and should be doing, before touching on the challenge of doing that and outlining where we are. As we have a couple of hours, I will leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South to respond, should he wish.

The petition response outlines the current position. As I will outline over the next few minutes, this afternoon’s conversation has highlighted some of the challenges in how we address the situation and just how far we want to go. I have huge sympathy for those who are trying to do something, but this is not the simplest thing in the world. I will explain exactly why in a moment.

Before I come to that, I congratulate and thank the campaigners, whom I met last week to discuss some of the issues. They have been conducting the “Finn’s Law” campaign in a positive, constructive way to get to a result, and they understand the mechanisms within which we work. They also appreciate, as do a large number of people in the police force—I met the Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner this morning to discuss this issue, as Finn is a member of that force—that the available sentencing powers, if used correctly, are as severe as we see elsewhere. The powers are not as severe as we would like, but it is about how they come across, whether they are used and the context in which they are used. I will return to that point.

I express my horror and disgust at the attack on PC Wardell and police dog Finn in Stevenage in October. Without touching on the case, I will say that the photographs taken of Finn after the operation are deeply distressing. I understand the public outrage that has followed the media coverage of the attack and its aftermath. That response is entirely human and expectable. The extent of the public support not just for Finn but more widely is clear.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the Minister not to refer to the court case, as I indicated at the beginning.

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. I have been very careful not to do that.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

You are getting quite close. I want to help you.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I have received a huge amount of emails and correspondence on this issue, none of which, I am sorry to say, asked about the welfare of PC Wardell—it was all concerned about Finn, which highlights just how much the public and we care about animals. I am pleased that both are recovering well.

As I said earlier this month, when we twice debated officer safety at length, any kind of assault on a police officer, or on the animals and people who work with them, is completely unacceptable, so I am grateful for this opportunity not only to reiterate that message but to restate my personal commitment to moving forward on this issue.

The particular abilities of dogs make them a vital part of the police team, and indeed the police family. Part of the complication, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned, is that the issue is wider than police dogs. We also have police horses and fire dogs—I met Reqs from Hertfordshire, and he is a fine specimen of a Labrador—and there are other service dogs too. Anyone who thinks it is appropriate, excusable or acceptable to mistreat, abuse or attack a guide dog or a hearing dog also needs to understand the severity of the crime they are committing. If we move forward on this issue, it is important that we encapsulate the kinds of dogs that serve our community and are extensions of the community that they serve.

Dogs provide important support in many areas of our public services. I have met Reqs, a fire and rescue dog, but there are other dogs working within our military or working to keep our borders safe. We often ask such animals to take on dangerous roles that we either would not ask humans to do or that it would simply not be practical for humans to do. These animals play a hugely important part in ensuring our safety and security.

Police dogs, for example, make a fantastic contribution in searches for suspects, vulnerable people and evidence, in specialist searches for drugs, explosives, firearms and bodies, in crime scene work and, of course, in tracking suspects. The pictures of Finn after the attack remind us of the specific dangers faced more widely by police dogs that are working in pursuit and public order situations. They and their handlers show incredible bravery and go about their work with dedication and courage to keep us safe and fight crime. They show remarkable courage and discipline.

Another police dog, PD Ghost of Merseyside police, lost his life last week while carrying out his duties. He was hit by a car in a tragic accident. The media coverage of his illustrious career—chasing and holding dangerous criminals to keep the local community safe—shows just how much we have lost with his passing. I offer my condolences to his handler, PC Dave Bartley, too.

Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on dogs, but it is important to remember that horses are also an important part of the police family. As well as making a contribution to local policing in our rural communities, police horses are often called on to perform their duties in the face of danger, including in serious public order situations. It is hugely upsetting to read stories such as those reported in the media following the million-mask march in London last year, when people looked to bring down a police horse and its rider, which is a cowardly and dangerous act. The images are still clear in my mind of a football match that I attended when I was young: police horses were brought in to ensure safety and security, and some fans decided to throw darts at the police horses. That is simply not acceptable.

On Friday afternoon I saw the preparation for the safety and security of the visitors and spectators at the England-Scotland football match. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, the vision of a police horse rider goes beyond anything that somebody at ground level can see. They therefore play an important role in ensuring that the policing is conducted and structured in the right way. More generally, we should all seek to encourage the Police Federation to consider adding a category at the police bravery awards to recognise the bravery shown by police animals.

The language used to describe attacks on police assault animals goes to the core of how we move this debate forward. I absolutely understand that the language used in the charging of assaults can be completely unpalatable. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made that point directly. We do not simply see these brave and important members of our policing family as property. They are more than property. They are a living, breathing thing, but a charge of criminal damage can suggest that they are nothing more than property. I appreciate how that can be upsetting and can seem wrong. I see how for many it can be the crux of the issue, and I agree with them.

The issue is complicated, because it goes more widely than police dogs. None of us thinks of police animals as just equipment. They are an important part of the job, but they are not just equipment. That does not seem to me to convey properly the respect and gratitude that we rightly feel for those animals, for their contribution to law enforcement and public safety more widely. That is why I have written to my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explore whether we can do more in law to offer appropriate protection to working animals.

I appreciate Members’ earlier calls about the Policing and Crime Bill, but I think it unlikely that we will do something in that Bill, partly because the Bill is at Report stage in the House of Lords and is likely to receive Royal Assent at the turn of the year. We need to do some work with the Sentencing Council. I will come to penalties in a moment; the point made about them was fair. There is work to do on ensuring that the penalties—which are severe and match those elsewhere in the world—that are linked to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 apply to animals in a way that is appropriate and correct in language, as well as on ensuring the ability to prosecute.

We must also consider using the law not just for police dogs and horses, but more widely for service and working dogs—that might cover guide dogs and potentially those used by the fire and rescue service and others. It is important that we do that piece of work. Other work is going on—I will come to it in a moment; it touches on some of the points the hon. Member for West Ham made about assessing—that means that we might not be able to put something in the Policing and Crime Bill, but if there is a need for legislative change, I will consider opportunities to do so in 2017.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I think he is an honourable man who will keep his word, and I accept that sometimes when we legislate in haste, we legislate badly, and it would be better to do this well. Has he thought of any forthcoming Bills from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice or DEFRA that he might be able to tag this on to? I always think that a date is a better way to hold the Government to account. It is something tangible and concrete to hang it on.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Lady for ensuring that she does her best to hold me to account, as well as to tempt me into pre-judging what Bills might be introduced in the next Session. I hope she will understand if I resist, but I will say that if we see while working through the issue that a legislative change is required—Sentencing Council changes might not require it—I will seek to do something in 2017, which is not that far away.

We expect a huge amount from our police support animals, in terms of their training, temperament and performance in their various roles and the dangerous situations in which we ask them to perform. The scale of support for the petition shows that the public hugely appreciate their work. It is only fair that police dogs and horses receive the best possible protection as they go about their duties.

As has been outlined in this debate by Members and in the response to the petition, significant penalties are already in place that can be issued to those who attack animals that support the police. I recognise that this e-petition debate is about more than just penalties. I hope I have covered some of that already, but I will go further. I am glad that the penalties currently available reflect the seriousness of the offence; the issue is how and where they are used to prosecute successfully. As has been said, an attack on a police dog or other police support animal can be treated as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. An attack on a police animal can be considered by the court as an aggravating factor, leading to a higher sentence within the range of six months’ custody.

Under some circumstances, assaults on support animals can be treated as criminal damage. I appreciate that that use of language can seem inappropriate, but it is important to note that that charge carries a much wider sentencing range, allowing for penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. I appreciate the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made about the valuations required, but we must also bear in mind that the valuation of a police dog, with its training, would be well in excess of the figures involved. Finn’s attacker has been charged with this offence, given the seriousness of the assault.

The petition calls for protection in line with that afforded to police support animals by the US Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act 2000, as the hon. Member for West Ham said. Under that legislation, causing harm to a police animal in the US carries a maximum tariff of one year in prison. Where the offence is more serious, the maximum penalty can be as high as 10 years, so the maximum penalties available there, if used, are about the same as the maximum penalties here in England and Wales. The issue is whether they are being used and presented in the right way. I agree that the framework within which the offence is held, prosecuted and used is crucial; at the moment, many people feel that it is not ideal. That is why I have outlined that I will work with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, as well as campaigners and colleagues throughout this House, to consider how we can take the issue forward in a positive way.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that this is not really a DEFRA issue; it is a criminal justice issue. We are talking about police officers, albeit four-legged ones, who give great service, as do the dogs of the armed forces. They are not the same as assistance dogs, however highly assistance dogs are also held in esteem. It is time that the Ministry of Justice is compelled to understand that we are dealing with law enforcement personnel, and to treat them accordingly.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights the complication. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is part of DEFRA’s portfolio, but as I said, I will also be working with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice. There is a wider issue, which people have raised with me, about how we define this. Is it an issue involving police animals, police and military animals, animals in the fire service and guide dogs? That is why I say that it is not as straightforward as we might like. I want to ensure that we get it absolutely right, so that we cover the right animals in the right way and get any legislation right. As I have said, the penalties elsewhere in the world that people want to be applied are available here; it is about whether they are in the right context and framework. I am determined that we will do what we can to ensure that we get it right. I take my hon. Friend’s point absolutely on board.

That is why it is important that we ensure that the right sentences are handed down when such offences come to light. The Sentencing Council recently consulted on revised guidelines for sentencing in the magistrates courts, including for animal cruelty offences. Throughout the development of the guidelines, the council has worked closely with the RSPCA. It is now reviewing consultation responses and developing definitive new guidelines, which it intends to implement in May next year. I am writing to raise the issue of attacks on police animals to ensure that it can be considered as part of the council’s consultation review.

I want us to do everything we can to ensure that assaults on police animals are taken seriously: that they are reported, that the police respond effectively and that the right sentences are handed down to those who think they can commit such crimes. My officials have been consulting police leads in the area, who are best placed to advise on this issue, and they agree that the penalties for attacking police animals are severe enough; it is the framework and how and when prosecutions are brought that we need to consider.

I know that police leaders are committed to the ethical and effective management, training and handling of police dogs. The current national police lead for dogs, Chief Constable Wilson of Suffolk police, chairs the police dog working group. To respond to one of the specific points raised in this debate, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, with the support of the College of Policing, the working group is currently updating practice guidance addressing the deployment, safety and welfare of police dogs to further professionalise the discipline. At the heart of the guidance is the welfare of all police dogs. The House may wish to note that both dogs and mounted policing will be brought together soon under one national police lead, Deputy Chief Constable Rod Hansen of Gloucestershire police, who currently holds the lead on mounted policing.

National statistics on the number of assaults on police animals are not collated, as was rightly said earlier, but I can inform the House that the national working group will consult police forces on the issue over the next few months to get a better idea of the extent, so that we can get the reporting correct. I am confident that police and crime commissioners will also play their part in saying quite clearly on behalf of local communities that attacks on police animals are abhorrent and unacceptable. The day after the attack, the PCC for Hertfordshire, David Lloyd, praised PC Wardell and PD Finn for their quick thinking and bravery. He subsequently issued a statement applauding the petition’s success. I met David this morning to discuss the issue; I welcome his helpful intervention and his positive contributions, which highlight how PCCs can play a lead role in expressing the public’s view on how we should see police animals.

We must strive to protect all members of the policing family: police dogs and their handlers, police horses and their riders, police officers, staff and volunteers. I know that chief constables are signing up to a pledge to support officers and staff who are victims of assault. For our part, the Government could not be clearer about the great value and respect in which we hold the police and the need to support them in their work. To enable chief officers to understand the scale of the issue, it is important that we have accurate data to capture the number of assaults, so we have sought to improve the collection of such data. As I outlined to the House in an Opposition day debate in October, we will ask all forces to include the number of assaults with injury on a police officer as part of their recorded crime data from April next year. Combined with the measures that I have announced today to address assaults on animals, that represents a significant step towards building a much better picture of assaults against the police family, so that local police leaders are in a better position to fully support their workforce of all types.

I thank again those who launched and signed the petition for the way in which they have conducted their campaign, which has allowed people throughout the country to get their voices heard. Those voices are being heard very clearly; all the Members who spoke today highlighted that. The Government and our police partners will work together to look at assaults on the police family—I use that word carefully—in the round and to send the firmest possible message that such assaults cannot, should not and must not be tolerated.

Police Officer Safety

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

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

“that any assault on a police officer is unacceptable and welcomes the work of the independent Sentencing Council in producing guidelines that specifically highlight the increased seriousness of an offence committed against anyone providing a public service; further welcomes the Government’s commitment to accurately record the number of assaults on police officers in England and Wales to better understand the scale of this issue; and further notes that the Government has protected police spending in real terms over the Spending Review period.”

I welcome the opportunity to debate such an important subject as police safety. I join the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in congratulating the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the work she has done. I am sure that the Adjournment debate on this subject played a part in bringing about this debate. It is important to raise this issue, and she is right to stand up for her constituency force.

As I told the House in a recent debate on police assaults, called by the hon. Member for Halifax, this is an area that I have great concern about. I am determined that we have a clear position that unites us across the House. I want to ensure that we are doing all that we can to support front-line police officers and police staff, as well as the public sector more generally. There needs to be a clear message that assaults on and bad behaviour towards people who are serving the public is unacceptable in any form.

I was delighted a few weeks ago to join the Home Secretary in celebrating achievements in all areas of policing at the annual Ferrers awards, which celebrate the achievements of special constables, cadets and the whole police volunteer family. Along with the police bravery awards, they are undoubtedly among the highlights of the policing calendar. Both events give us the chance to pay tribute to the brave men and women and the cadets for all they do, whether in a voluntary capacity or as full police officers and staff, day in, day out, to keep our country and our residents safe.

Just last night, I attended a police training exercise in Wiltshire, where I saw at first hand how officers prepare to deal with attacks against them by protesters. I was hugely impressed by the way in which officers handled themselves in fast-paced scenarios based on spontaneous public order situations and was struck by the level they must train to, to be ready for the kind of attack that can come upon them from members of the public. It was a stark reminder of the way in which they put themselves at risk every day for us.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in such situations, police dogs and horses are sometimes attacked and that police officers can be bitten and spat at? Does he agree that people who spit at and bite police officers should be automatically given blood tests to check whether they have transmittable diseases and that there should be sanctions for people who attack police dogs and horses?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman’s point relates to something that may be considered by the Backbench Business Committee as part of the petitions process following the petition on Finn’s law. I am keen to meet the organiser of that for a conversation. Any kind of assault on police officers or on the animals and people who work with them is completely unacceptable. He mentioned spitting and there has been coverage recently of the view that the Mayor of London has taken on that. I think that any such behaviour is completely unacceptable.

I have talked quite a lot in recent speeches about the value we should place on policing as a profession. It should attract not just the bold and the brave but the brightest and the best. The new recruits taking their first steps in policing following the tremendous recent recruitment drive made possible by this Government are doing so at an exciting time.

I am afraid the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington got her figures a little confused in a few areas. I suggest that she look at the difference between recorded crime and actual crime, and crime and assaults against police officers rather than overall crime—and indeed the figures on police funding, which I will come to directly in a minute, where I am afraid her facts were a little off.

The crime survey of England and Wales shows that crime is down by more than a quarter. It is at its lowest level since that independent survey began some 35 years ago. But we recognise that crime is changing. Although this Government have always been clear that we do not seek to run policing, nor to decide from the centre how many officers are needed in Hackney or in Halifax, we want to make sure we are playing our part in helping the police to do their job. Where it is right for Government to act, we will, and have done so.

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

I want to raise the increase in assaults on police officers at the Notting Hill carnival. What can the Minister do to make that event safe for our good thin line, which works so hard at it?

[Brandon Lewis]

Public events such as that one pose an extra challenge for our police forces. That is the exactly the kind of event I was seeing police officers, from a number of areas, training for last night. That training has been going on over the past few weeks, so if the people of Wiltshire have been seeing flashing blue lights recently they do not have to panic—they were for training exercises. It is important that we make sure the police have the support and funding they need to continue not just the recruitment drives to make sure their forces are at the right level—London is at the right level, as, in effect, the highest funded police force in the country—but that sort of training. The College of Policing has a hugely important part to play, which I will come to in a moment. Changes in crime bring with them a need for officers who can adapt—who have up-to-date skills and the energy and innovation to keep renewing them, who are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who can follow criminals online as well as they can on our streets and who put victims at the heart of what they do.

I do not underestimate the job of our police forces. They are widely and rightly acknowledged as the best in the world. Policing is a hugely challenging career. Police officers will see more than most people would ever wish to. It is clearly not a job for the fainthearted; it needs strength, resilience and a commitment to making our society a better and safer place. But that does not mean that getting assaulted in the workplace is part of the deal or that being abused or hurt while doing the job should be part of the cost of doing business as a police officer. It is not and must not be.

Only this morning, a police officer was seriously injured after an incident in Lancashire. My thoughts—and, I hope, those of the whole House—are with the officer involved and his family. Just yesterday, it was reported that officers were attacked with fireworks by a group of youths in north London. That incident is obviously now being investigated by the police.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Minister has just raised a really interesting point—namely, attacks by youths. Will he comment on the fact that sentencing guidelines with respect to aggravated offences for assaults on police officers do not apply to young people under the age of 18?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to sentencing in a few moments.

Those kinds of assaults, and assaults of any kind, are unacceptable at all levels. Unfortunately, they happen in all parts of the country: whether in Worcester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire or Warwickshire, there have been examples in just the past few months of assaults that people should not have to put up with and we should not tolerate as a country. Let me be very clear, then, that assaulting a police officer is completely unacceptable, and anyone found guilty should expect to face the full force of the law.

I assure the hon. Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that tough penalties are available to the courts for those who assault police officers. Sentencing guidelines rightly provide for assault on a police officer to be treated more severely in appropriate cases. I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about youths, and I will touch on that in a moment. However, it is right that we remember that courts are independent and must have discretion to take account of all the circumstances of each case in determining an appropriate sentence.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Why, if there is no discretion in relation to victims of knife crime, does the Minister believe the police deserve less protection than that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that the point I am making is that the police deserve our protection and that the sentencing is in place to ensure they have the right protection. Sentencing is not only about protection, but ensuring people who commit an unacceptable offence against a public servant feel the full force of the law. I will come on to that in a bit more detail.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity and fine words, but there is a gap between them and the reality. Today, I spoke to Bryn Hughes, the father of Nicola Hughes, who, as the Minister will know, was murdered in Greater Manchester a couple of years ago. I do not know if he has seen the Daily Mirror today, but the headline is “Cop killer’s life of luxury behind bars”. What message does he think that sends out to people who commit these appalling acts against police officers? I do not doubt his sincerity, but he needs to act on the reality, which is that those people are not being treated harshly enough.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will hold my hands up and say I have not read the Daily Mirror today. I appreciate that that might be a shock to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will make sure I read it later. That offender is in prison. I am happy to look at an individual case and talk to colleagues at the Ministry of Justice about what is happening in that prison, if he thinks that there is an issue, but it is clear that the offender went to prison and it is right that people face the full force of the law. I was slightly surprised by comments made by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. If the right hon. Gentleman speaks later, perhaps he could outline why the data she referred to as being haphazard were not dealt with in 13 years of Labour government. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment.

We will continue to provide the Sentencing Council with data and evidence on assaults on police officers, as the council reviews its guidelines. We need to better understand the circumstances surrounding assaults. The College of Policing has provided financial support to fund a project, as the hon. Lady rightly outlined, led by Hampshire police to gather and analyse a sample of internal records of assaults against officers. I am working with ministerial colleagues across the Government, such as the Solicitor General, on a range of these issues to ensure that individuals are appropriately prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I fully agree that we need better data to help us to understand the scale of assaults on police officers. We have been working for some time to improve the numbers available.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister mentions 13 years of Labour government. When Labour left office, there were 143,734 officers. There are now 124,000 officers. I should know that because I was the Police Minister in the last Labour Government. I will tell him this, too, while I am on my feet. Under the Labour Government, body cameras were trialled and introduced, with a plan for them to be rolled out in full. I know that, because I was the Police Minister in the last year of that Labour Government. Why do we not have body cameras on all officers, when the plans were there in 2009 to achieve that objective?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will come on to body cameras in a moment, but I can only confirm what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, which is that the data are not there. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Ministers were doing in not collecting the data, but I will come on to that.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will finish answering the right hon. Gentleman’s question. He can stand up all he likes, but I will finish answering his question whether he likes it or not.

As a first step, we published provisional statistics on officer assaults in July, despite the limitations of the data. The figures indicated that there were an estimated 23,000 assaults on officers across all forces in 2015-16. The data also indicated that nearly 8,000 of those assaults involved injury reported by officers, with 270 reported by police community support officers. On the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point, he might be right about the police numbers, but he has to accept that crime is down since 2010, when he left office.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister should know, in his role, that policing is not just about crime. Policing is about public order. Policing is about flooding. Policing is about dealing with public issues on the streets with people who are alcohol-intoxicated but have not yet committed a crime. Policing is not just about solving criminal activity. If there are fewer police on our streets, that is more dangerous, particularly if shifts are not working double-manned because of the cut in numbers.

[Brandon Lewis]

Crime is down; the police are working more efficiently and effectively; they are finding new and different ways to work. That is a good thing, and I think the police should feel proud of their work.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

Let me make a bit of progress before taking some more interventions.

We are publishing these provisional statistics because it is important to shine a spotlight on this issue and help to encourage the sort of discussion we are having here today. However, to improve the accuracy of these data, the Home Office has continued to work with police forces to build on this work, and I can announce that from next year we are asking police forces to provide data on the number of assaults with injury on a police officer as part of their recorded crime data. Creating this new crime classification is an important step in providing a more complete picture of assaults experienced by police officers. This additional information will help chief officers to understand what is happening in their forces and to protect their officers and staff.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that here in Westminster we are often accustomed to seeing police officers dressed rather as we would have expected Jack Warner to dress in Dock Green. However, what I think is encouraging is that when we come across police officers out in Hampshire, for example, we find them dressed and protected against the very assaults to which my right hon. Friend has referred. That is vital.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which goes part of the way to answer an earlier point: it is important that we do not control policing centrally; we should resist the urge to centralise everything on the assumption that we know best. It is for local police forces and local chief constables to know their areas best and to look at what they need to do with their police forces for the benefit of their community and indeed their staff.

It is the responsibility of chief constables, as employers, to keep their workforce safe. In that aim, we fully support their making best use of new technology, wherever possible. Although it is an operational decision for chief officers, the use of body-worn video can be a powerful tool. As rightly outlined by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington—we do not often agree, but we agree on this—it can provide reassurance to both the police and indeed the public about the way in which both parties are working and acting.

In this vital task of keeping their workforce safe, chief constables are held to account by their democratically elected police and crime commissioners, and supported by the College of Policing, which sets the standards that the chief constables are charged with implementing. That is why I have written today to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, to encourage forces to adopt the new crime classification as soon as possible. In my letter, I have taken the opportunity to stress the importance that this Government place on police officer safety, as I did in my conversation with her earlier today.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister for Policing put right what he said a few moments ago? It is not true that crime is falling; crime is changing. The Office for National Statistics includes online fraud and cybercrime in its figures. The figures are clear: crime is near doubling on the one hand, at a time when the police service is being cut by 20,000 on the other hand. This is the legacy of the Prime Minister from when she was Home Secretary.

[Brandon Lewis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not consciously get something wrong, so let me suggest that he look again at the facts. He is completely wrong. The ONS is for the first time publishing the figures on cybercrime. This is not extra crime; it is crime that has never been published in the figures before. I have to tell hon. and right hon. Members that recorded crime going up is a good thing, showing that the public are gaining more confidence in reporting crime. The reporting of crime is getting better, but actual crime is down since 2010.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I apologise to both Front-Bench teams, as I will miss their closing speeches on account of my son’s parents’ evening. I would like to press the Minister on what the Government are doing about body-worn cameras. Given the evidence that such cameras not only reduce the incidence of assaults on police officers about which we are all so concerned, but improve detection and make for a better response to victims of crime, and in light of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that plans were in place to try to roll out the provision, what is going to be done now and how fast will it be rolled out everywhere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, in that I believe body-worn cameras could be a vital tool, providing a good example of a technology that can help. However, it is a matter for the police and crime commissioners and chief constables to decide what is right locally. We do not run policing from the Home Office. Although the transformation fund comes from the Home Office, and is enabling police forces, chief constables and police and crime commissioners to work together closely on IT development for the future, it is for them to decide how to do that, and how to spread the fund and share best practice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Brandon Lewis]

I will take some more interventions in a few moments.

I welcome the work that is being led by chief officers, and by the College of Policing under the leadership of Deputy Chief Constable Andy Rhodes, to consider the broader health and wellbeing of officers who are undertaking a stressful and demanding job on a daily basis. It is encouraging to note that all forces have signed up to the workplace wellbeing charter, and to hear about DCC Rhodes’s work with the charity Mind to give officers better access to the care that they need. Last week I was delighted to meet Gill Scott-Moore, chief executive officer of the Police Dependants’ Trust, to discuss, among other things, the mental health and wellbeing of police officers. Home Office officials will continue to work with those organisations and with the Department of Health, and to consider what more we can do.

There has already been a great deal of talk about resources today. I am proud of the Government’s record on tackling the deficit, and I am clear about the fact that policing has its role to play in meeting that challenge. I remind the House that in 2016-17—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington may believe—police spending has been protected, and no police and crime commissioners who maximised their precepts have seen a reduction in their cash funding. That is a good deal for policing. Moreover, on top of that protection of direct resource funding for PCCs, counter-terrorism police funding increased in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17, and transformation funding provides an opportunity to invest in digitalisation, a diverse and flexible workforce, and new and more efficient capabilities to tackle cybercrime and other emerging crimes and threats. Ultimately, all decisions about local policing resources and roles are for chief constables, held to account by their directly accountable police and crime commissioners.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for telling us that the funding situation is great while keeping a straight face—it is an admirable performance—but how can he possibly square that with the fact that chief constables, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, borough commanders and the Mayor of London all agree that funding and resources are the key challenge to tackling street crime and the other crimes about which my constituents complain?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a key point. First, we have protected funding in real, cash terms, as is clear from the spending review, so if PCCs are using their precepts, they have that opportunity. Indeed, in certain areas we have increased funding. What really matters is not the tired old debate about officer numbers, much as some people may want to engage in it. What people should be thinking about is the way in which officers, staff and volunteers are deployed, and the results of that approach are showing in the fall in crime that has been taking place since 2010.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen to intervene again. I look forward to the speech that he is bound to make later this evening.

Chief officers also have their sights set firmly on how effectively they are using their resources. We should, I think, be focusing on what the police are doing with their time. The proportion of officers in front-line roles has increased across England and Wales since 2010 to 93% in March 2016, and more than 50% of all police officers now work in local policing functions. We have seen forces across the country collaborating to make savings and pooling resources to improve effectiveness without sacrificing local accountability and identity, and they should be proud of having done that.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not recognise the following description? According to the Nottinghamshire Police Federation, officers

“are more often on their own dealing with these situations with back up miles away and with no TASER resources anywhere near them”.

Is that not the reality? Front-line police officers are trying to deal with things, but they do not have sufficient numbers to be properly backed up.

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, the crewing and structure of any organisation is rightly the responsibility of the chief constable, along with the police and crime commissioner. We have ensured that the necessary funding and protection are there this year.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling that some Opposition Members might have benefited from reading last year’s Public Accounts Committee’s report on the demands on the police, which shows that those demands are not related to crime?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are a few areas where Opposition Members might want to look at some of the facts and figures, and not confuse them as much as they seem to be doing.

The tremendous fall in crime I have mentioned already this afternoon was achieved while bearing down on budgets. Central Government funding for the police has fallen in real terms, and we and the police should be proud of the fact that it has saved £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money.

I am aware of some great examples, such as the strategic alliance between Warwickshire and West Mercia Police. The alliance can now more effectively surge resources to deal with unexpected demand; 24-hour cover is available across more policing functions; more officers and PCSOs are based in safer neighbourhood teams than in pre-alliance days; and a wider pool of expertise and experience can be tapped to respond effectively to policing challenges.

[Robert Flello]

The Minister paints a rosy picture, but what about the families who have lost loved ones because of drivers using mobile phones at the wheel? The Minister clearly does not read newspapers, but quite a few papers today are carrying pictures of drivers using mobile phones. Drivers are killing people, and they are not stopped because there are no traffic police out there to stop them. What does the Minister think of that? Is that somebody else’s responsibility as well?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman should check his facts and have a look at what I said earlier. What I said was I do not read The Mirror and I have not read it today. That is not quite what he was saying. He is right, however, that people who commit an offence of any description against an officer should be feeling the full force of the law. That is why I am working with colleagues across other Departments. We have sentencing guidelines, and an offence against a police officer is an aggravating factor. Even with the sentencing of youths, the fact that it is an offence against a police officer is taken into account. The difference in the sentencing systems does not mean that such issues are not taken into account.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all Members of Parliament who have any concerns about police being attacked have a responsibility not to address organisations that claim that there is a problem with police brutality, as some Members of the Opposition Front Bench have done?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has front-line experience of what police deal with every day, and I congratulate him and everybody who takes on these roles both in that capacity and any other. That goes to the heart of why the changes I announced earlier today are so important. I told the Police Federation what I would do when I first met it just a few months ago, and I am delighted that we will be able to deliver on that. It will give us the information and the certainty the police need and want.

I have been impressed by the speed at which policing has taken the lead in driving the police transformation fund, which provided £23 million for transformation work in August and £13.8 million in October. It is right that the sector takes ownership of law enforcement transformation, shaping the needs of the future. The fund provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform policing through direct investment into a wide range of projects from body-worn cameras to workforce diversity to increasing digitalisation and technology.

As I have said, the Home Office does not believe it runs policing—nor should it. It is for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working together in the interests of policing as a whole, to lead and implement the next stage of police reform. The Government will continue to provide support to the police, doing what only we can, such as making the important change I have announced today. We will look to police leaders to play their full part in keeping the police, as well as the public whom we all serve, safe. That is why I ask the House to support the amendment.

Orgreave

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the process she went through and the papers she considered before reaching her decision not to proceed with an inquiry into the events at Orgreave in June 1984.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

The Home Secretary announced her decision in a written ministerial statement yesterday, in which she explained her main reasons for deciding against instigating either a statutory inquiry into or an independent review of the events at Orgreave coking plant. She has also written to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign setting out the detailed reasons for her decision, and she answered a number of questions in the House yesterday in response to an oral parliamentary question on this subject.

In determining whether to establish a statutory inquiry or other review, the Home Secretary considered a number of factors, reviewed a wide range of documents and spoke to members of the campaign. She came to the view that neither an inquiry nor a review was required to allay public concern at this stage, more than 30 years after the events in question. In so doing, she noted the following factors. Despite the forceful accounts and arguments provided by the campaigners about the effect that these events had on them, ultimately there were no deaths or wrongful convictions. In addition, the policing landscape and the wider criminal justice system have changed fundamentally since 1984, with significant changes in the oversight of policing at every level, including major reforms to criminal procedure, changes to public order policing and practice, stronger external scrutiny and greater local accountability. There are few lessons to be learned from a review of the events and practices of three decades ago. This is a very important consideration when looking at the necessity for an inquiry or independent review.

Taking these considerations into account, we do not believe that establishing any kind of inquiry is required in the wider public interest or for any other reason.

[Andy Burnham]

The now Prime Minister invited Orgreave campaigners to submit a bid for an inquiry and she entered Downing Street talking about fighting burning injustices, so the House will understand why so many people feel bitterly betrayed today. Orgreave is one of the most divisive events in British social history. Given that there is evidence of unlawful conduct by the police in relation to it, is it not simply staggering that the Home Secretary has brushed aside an inquiry as not necessary? Is it not even more revealing that she was not prepared to come to this House today to justify her decision?

I want to focus very specifically on her decision-making process, and I expect direct answers from the Minister. Before making her decision, did the Home Secretary recall files held by South Yorkshire police and review them personally? I am told they never left Sheffield. Is that true? Did she consider in detail the new testimony that has emerged from police officers, particularly in relation to police statements? Did she review all relevant Cabinet papers, such as the minutes—stamped “SECRET” —of the meeting between Margaret Thatcher and Leon Brittan, in which the then Home Secretary said he wanted

“to increase the rate of prosecutions”

of miners? If the Home Secretary did not do each and every one of these crucial things, will not many people conclude that the decision-making process was incomplete and therefore unsound?

Yesterday, the Home Secretary promised to release the operational order. Will the Minister make sure that that happens immediately? She also dismissed the link with Hillsborough. In doing so, is she dismissing the words of Margaret Aspinall, who believes that if the police had been properly held to account for their misdeeds in 1985, the Hillsborough cover-up may never have happened? Are we to conclude that from now on, under this Home Secretary, all manner of misdeeds will be left uninvestigated as long as there are “no deaths”?

The Minister attended a positive meeting with campaigners in early September. We left the meeting with the clear impression that it was not a question of whether there would be an inquiry, but of what form the inquiry would take. Indeed, the next day The Times reported on its front page that Whitehall sources had said there would be an inquiry. Did the Home Secretary or her advisers authorise this briefing, and what changed after it was given? In retrospect, does the Minister now concede that it was utterly cruel to give those campaigners false hope in that way?

Yesterday, we were hit with a bombshell, but today we dust ourselves down and we give notice to this Government that we will never give up this fight.

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman will know full well from the meeting with campaigners that he came to, and I was also at, that we were very clear, as the Home Secretary has been throughout the process, that she would make a decision by the end of October and would take into account a wide range of factors. She considered a number of factors when making her decision. She reviewed a wide range of documents, carefully considered the arguments contained in the campaign’s submission and spoke to the campaign leaders and supporters, as she did yesterday, when she personally spoke to Barbara Jackson and to the right hon. Gentleman, among others, and I spoke to the police and crime commissioner.

The right hon. Gentleman commented on the links with Hillsborough. I know he will be aware that work is still ongoing on Hillsborough, with the Independent Police Complaints Commission still looking at the issues, and there could still be criminal proceedings.

When the right hon. Gentleman looks at the decision he should remember that, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out yesterday, we fully appreciate that we disagree on this, but that does not mean that the Home Secretary’s decision is wrong.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much support the Home Secretary’s decision. Unlike most of the people bleating on the Labour Benches, I actually lived in South Yorkshire in a mining community during the time of the miners strike and saw at first hand the bullying and intimidation from the miners that went on. People who did not contribute to the strike fund had their windows done in.

These people were trying to bring down the democratically elected Government of the time. They lost, and they need to get over it. Anyone only has to look at the TV pictures—[Interruption.]

[Philip Davies]

People only have to look at the TV footage of the event to see the violence that the miners were carrying out against police officers. Will the Minister explain why, if this matter is so important to Labour Members, in the 13 years they were in government they did absolutely nothing about it?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an impassioned point. I would not for a moment want to put words in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) from the Dispatch Box. I am sure he will be able to explain the actions he took or did not take during that period. For us, this has not been a political decision. The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is about looking at what is right in terms of the wider public interest and in the light of the substantial changes to and reforms of the police service there have been. All of us, across the House, should get behind the continued driving through of future reforms of the police service through the Policing and Crime Bill.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

We on the Labour Benches have noted that the Home Secretary has not bothered to come before the House on this occasion to explain her decision.

Most people in this House remember the miners strike, and what happened at Orgreave was totemic. Most people in the House also remember what Lord Stockton—Harold Macmillan—said in his maiden speech in the House of Lords about the miners strike:

“it breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today. A terrible strike…by the best men in the world. They beat the Kaiser’s army and they beat Hitler’s army. They never gave in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 240.]

Does the Minister understand that the Home Secretary’s decision is a slap in the face to the best men in the world and their friends and supporters? Does he understand that the Orgreave campaigners feel that they have been led up the garden path by the Home Secretary? And does he understand that the Home Secretary’s proposition is that because there were no deaths and no convictions—and the cases only collapsed because the collusion by South Yorkshire police officers was revealed—injustice must stand? The Opposition say to Ministers that we will not let this issue go and that injustice will not be allowed to stand.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady was here yesterday when the Home Secretary was here, having already made a written ministerial statement, to answer questions on this matter during oral questions. I am here today because this issue forms part of the portfolio I cover for the Home Office.

The Government have stood up and brought forward inquiries before. We have not been afraid to address matters to correct the wrongs of the past. We have had to consider the wider public interest, which includes what lessons need to be learned and how we change police behaviour based on what happened 30 years ago. Bear in mind that since that time we have had not only the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but a range of other reforms, not least the delivery of local accountability through police and crime commissioners and changes in police practice. Looking at what lessons could be learned, what the benefits would be and what outcomes we are looking for from a public inquiry, the Home Secretary’s decision, although the hon. Lady disagrees with it, is absolutely right.

I would just make a further point to the hon. Lady. In looking at the wider public interest, the Home Office considers a wide range of matters, including differences with previous cases where there were a substantial number of tragic deaths. In this case there were none and there were no convictions, so what we are looking at with a public inquiry is whether other lessons could be learned. As I said yesterday, if the hon. Lady looks at the changes in police practice over 30 years, she will see there would be no benefit from proceeding with a public inquiry.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Some of us did not read accounts of the miners strike in The Guardian, with the benefit of living in London. Some of us—as I was, reporting for Central Television—were there on a daily basis. I totally agree with the Home Secretary’s very sensible decision. If we were to have an inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be into the funding and activities of the National Union of Mineworkers, which on an almost daily basis bussed thousands of their members into the county of Nottinghamshire to not only bring down a democratically elected Government, but to thwart the democratic decision of the Nottinghamshire miners to work?

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend highlights the very strong feelings on all sides about Orgreave. We totally understand that. The Home Secretary outlined that here yesterday and in the meeting with Orgreave campaigners that I and other MPs also attended. As the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, we appreciate that the campaigners will be disappointed with the decision she has made, but we have to make a decision about what is in the wider public interest, and an inquiry is not.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I listened very carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say yesterday, but, as has already been indicated, her argument that there were no wrongful convictions does not hold water when one realises that the cases collapsed when a decent lawyer revealed collusion on the part of the police.

The absence of deaths at Orgreave is also a red herring. Is not the real issue here as follows: when the redactions to the June 2015 IPCC report were revealed, they showed striking similarities between the personnel and the alleged practices of South Yorkshire police at Orgreave and Hillsborough? Of course, we all now know what went on to happen at Hillsborough. Did the Home Secretary not feel that the striking similarities between personnel and practices at Orgreave and Hillsborough alone justified an independent inquiry, even as an opportunity to increase public trust in the police?

Moreover, there is a very important issue raised by Orgreave, which is the alleged political interference by the then UK Government in operational policing. If there was political interference from the Government in operational policing, it would be a deeply troubling matter and one of huge constitutional significance. Did the Home Secretary give this grave accusation consideration as part of the process leading to her decision yesterday?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. and learned Lady addresses issues relating to the investigation. The IPCC has said that, should further evidence emerge of any impropriety by an officer, retired or otherwise, it would look at it. I met the chairman of the IPCC yesterday afternoon. She confirmed again that if new evidence came forward it would look at it. Furthermore, the report published by the IPPC was redacted on legal advice because it contained passages relating to the then ongoing Hillsborough inquiry. I refer back to my comments of a short while ago: investigations are still going on into Hillsborough and criminal proceedings may well come out of them. The IPCC is involved in those investigations.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is disappointing that the Labour party seems to want to divide our society once again. Labour Members would do well to remember that the miners in South Derbyshire, North West Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire wanted to work and bore the full brunt of secondary picketing. Does the Minister agree it is important that the new chief constable of South Yorkshire police, who was only appointed in the summer, has a chance to bed into his position and start to rebuild his relationships with the local community?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, a variation of which was raised yesterday by another hon. Friend. I spoke to the police and crime commissioner of South Yorkshire yesterday, so I know that the force is determined to build a new relationship with the people of South Yorkshire. There is new leadership and new membership in that police force, and I said that I was looking forward to working with them to develop a new approach from what existed some 30 years ago. They acknowledge that they have a piece of work to do to rebuild engagement with the community, and we will stand with them in support.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I find it painful that Members are rehashing discredited, 30-year-old smears, which does nothing for community cohesion. Both the Home Secretary yesterday and the Minister now seem to be saying that we are not having this inquiry because nobody died. Is that the new bar that this Government are levying on justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

No, and with all due respect, I think the hon. Lady is using an unfortunate interpretation of what I said. I have been clear, as was the Home Secretary yesterday, that there is a wide range of issues surrounding the public interest in having an inquiry. There were no wrongful convictions, and there were no deaths, but a key question is—I stress it again—what lessons are we looking to learn from an incident that happened 30 years ago? In the period from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 right through to the Policing and Crime Bill that is going through the House today, there has been a substantial and dramatic change in the system and structure of policing in this country. Things are very different today, so there is no wider public interest in having an inquiry at this time.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that we are in danger of running away with the concept that all police at the time were bad and all the striking miners were good? I still remember Arthur Scargill refusing to condemn picket line violence. I remember the murder of the taxi driver, David Wilkie; and I remember the relentless use of the word “scab” to describe anybody who simply wanted to go to work. Should we not get a sense of proportion here?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I fully recognise that there are very strong feelings on all sides of the debate. Some families feel very strongly about it, and I and others met them in September this year. I absolutely understand the strength of their feeling and why they feel as they do, but we have to look at the wider public interest. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) refers from a sedentary position to other issues around South Yorkshire, but they are separate issues. This is a decision specifically about Orgreave, not the wider issues for South Yorkshire. We may disagree with it, but the Home Secretary has made the decision—the right decision—that there is no benefit from having a public inquiry on this issue.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement today reflects what the Home Secretary said in her written ministerial statement yesterday, which is that somehow there can be no inquiry because South Yorkshire policing has moved on. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is a new principle of truth and justice—that it can be denied, in the face of serious allegations, because of the dubious claim that lessons have been learned. That is why families and communities in South Yorkshire feel that they have been sold down the river by this Government—and this cannot stand.

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, this has to be looked at in the context of this particular case. Under this Government, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have stood up to take on independent reviews and inquiries over a range of very difficult issues over the last six years, looking at what happened in the past. Despite what Opposition Members might wish to make of it, this is not a political decision; it is a decision based on looking at the particular case of Orgreave and at what is in the wider public interest. As I have outlined, a public inquiry will not serve that interest.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that far and away the worst atrocity in those terrible events was the murder of the taxi driver, David Wilkie? Is my right hon. Friend as amazed as I am that his death has not been mentioned once by Opposition Members? Does he agree that if we are to have a public inquiry, it should be into what the former leader of the Labour party called the lies, the violence and the lack of a ballot by those strike-breakers?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights the strength of feeling that exists on all sides of the debate about the activities that happened many years ago. On the point he raised about what would happen if there were a public inquiry, there will not be one. The decision of the Home Secretary and the Government is that the wider public interest is not served by having an Orgreave inquiry.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Why is it that 31 years is too long for an inquiry, yet 31 years is not too long for this Government to carry on hiding the Cabinet papers on the strike and to refuse to release them? Why is it so long, when we know that the Thatcher Government were going to close 75 pits and not 20? The truth is that this nasty party has now become the nasty Government, who are more concerned about preserving the Thatcher legacy than they are fighting for truth and justice.

[Brandon Lewis]

Again, the hon. Gentleman misinterprets what I have said this afternoon. What I have said very clearly is that the decision not to have a public inquiry is based on looking at the wider public interest. Included in that are the facts that there were no wrongful convictions and no deaths and, importantly, that police structure and behaviour has changed. This was seen partly under the last Labour Government, but predominantly under this Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to support and join us in carrying out the further work to continue those reforms and to work with the South Yorkshire police to improve their relationship with people as we go forward. I have spoken to the police and crime commissioner of South Yorkshire, and I know that he is very keen to be transparent and to deliver more. He has employed an archivist to try to ensure that South Yorkshire police get all the archives they can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to engage with that.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The synthetic indignation from Labour Members cannot mask the fact that in 13 years of a Labour Government, the issue of Orgreave was completely neglected and forgotten. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the absence of an inquiry—I concur wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary’s decision—the clear and necessary changes in governance and mind-set required within the South Yorkshire police will continue and be delivered?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. It is very important that we continue to reform the police service for the future. Some reforms are outlined in the Policing and Crime Bill, and there are others that the former Home Secretary, now our Prime Minister, has taken on, and that the Home Secretary is determined to deliver. It is part of the task of changing how the police work from how they used to work some 30 years ago. I spoke to Dr Alan Billings, the police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire yesterday afternoon. I am determined to work with him and his chief constable to make sure that they get a good relationship with the people of South Yorkshire in the future. We want to ensure that the police service delivers on the work that the police do every single day—policing by consent.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I have represented Orgreave in this House since 1983. I well remember the events of the miners strike at that time. I called for a public inquiry to review the policing of the miners strike in 1985—and it was denied at that time as it has been denied now. The Minister says that the IPCC is still looking at these issues, but he must know that the IPCC deals with serving police officers. If they are still serving in South Yorkshire, they would have been about 16 at the time, so this is not an answer to the problem. He says that the Home Secretary is looking at the papers, but we need an independent individual to look at them. If we cannot have a full public inquiry, we should surely be able to have someone of an independent nature to look at what happened to see if any lessons can be learned from the policing of the miners strike in 1984-85.

[Brandon Lewis]

I think the fact that the IPCC is involved in work on Hillsborough that could lead to criminal proceedings shows that it is prepared to deal with these issues appropriately. After all, it is an independent organisation. As I said earlier, I met its chair yesterday, and he confirmed again—as the IPCC has already confirmed publicly—that if new evidence appears, it will look at that evidence. I assume from the right hon. Gentleman’s comments that he will fully support the work that we are doing to reform and update the IPCC to ensure that officers who have left the police force can still be involved in investigations and prosecuted by the organisation.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

I was a serving police officer at the time, and I well remember the situation as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Does the Minister agree that policing has moved on significantly in the last few decades, that there are sufficient safeguards against a repetition of an episode like Orgreave and that there is no useful purpose in an inquiry?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. As I have said, the changes made by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the criminal justice changes, and other reforms—not least the introduction of local accountability through police and crime commissioners—have led to a dramatic change in policing practices in the last few decades. I welcome that, but we all need to work to ensure that it continues.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I note that the Minister has failed to answer a single one of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I feel sorry for the Minister, because the Home Secretary bottled it yesterday and she has bottled it again today. He knows that she did not review the documents on the basis of which the IPCC reached its decision. Does he honestly believe that she can honestly say that there is no link with Hillsborough and that there are no lessons to be learnt today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady should have another look at what I said in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. Although I fully appreciate that both she and he may not agree with or like what I said, that does not mean that I did not answer the question, and it does not mean that the Home Secretary’s decision is wrong. A number of factors were taken into account in the making of that decision. It involved looking at a wide range of documents, and, indeed, meeting the Orgreave campaigners themselves, as the Home Secretary, the hon. Lady and I did in September. I suggest that the hon. Lady look again at my answers to questions, including my answers to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister agrees with David Blunkett, the former Labour Home Secretary, who reportedly said that he

“would take some convincing that another agonising internal inquiry would shed more light than is already known.”

[Brandon Lewis]

I saw that quotation as well, and I think it underlines and highlights the fact that this was a difficult decision. No one has said that it was easy. As the Home Secretary herself said, in the House yesterday—and she was here yesterday, answering questions on this matter—and also during previous appearances in the House and when meeting the campaigners, a difficult decision had to be made and many factors weighed up. Ultimately, however, we had to make a decision about what was in the wider public interest, and this decision is in the wider public interest.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister a very simple question? Will the Home Secretary meet members of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign to discuss this matter further?

[Brandon Lewis]

The Home Secretary has met the Orgreave campaigners, and she spoke to Barbara Jackson yesterday. She has also written to the campaigners, and I think that they need time to digest her letter. I know that they made a statement shortly before I came into the House today, but we shall have to await their response to the Home Secretary and take matters from there.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

A few moments ago, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) mentioned the 1983 election. May I invite the Minister to consider improvements that have been made in police codes of conduct in the past 30 years by, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which came into force on 1 January 1986? Given the apparent strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches, is it not strange that successive Labour Governments failed to conduct a review of, or inquiry into, what had happened at Orgreave?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has made a couple of points. I will let others draw their own conclusions about the actions of those other than ourselves in the Home Office, but I will say that he is absolutely right about the changes that have taken place. We have had PACE, the Public Order Act 1986, the changes at HMIC, and the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy inspections. The Association of Chief Police Officers has now become the National Police Chiefs Council and has its own codes of conduct. Furthermore, we have the Policing and Crime Bill, and we have the police and crime commissioner reforms that were introduced in the House by the present Prime Minister. Policing has changed dramatically, but we want the reforms to continue, and I urge all members to support that work.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I was elected to the House in 1984, in the middle of the miners strike. I spoke about the strike in my maiden speech, and I stood on the picket lines and saw what happened. I saw the brutality and the intimidation. I saw a pregnant woman kicked in the stomach. There was a lot of violence. That was in the Cynon valley, and people in the Cynon valley still feel very strongly about this issue. They believe that unless the Government have something to hide, they should agree to an inquiry. We are fully behind the people who call for the inquiry: people never forget, and certainly they will never forget the experiences of the miners strike.

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, the decision that we have had to make—the decision that the Home Secretary has made—involved looking at a range of issues relating to the specific case of Orgreave and considering whether it was in the wider public interest to hold an inquiry. It was decided that it was not.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on being granted the urgent question, but does the Minister agree that if there is to be an inquiry of this kind, it should take place as soon as possible after the event? Did the Home Secretary take account of the fact that Prime Minister Brown and Prime Minister Blair did not hold such an inquiry? Is not the danger now that all that would happen is that a lot of lawyers would become even richer, and we would not gain any more knowledge?

[Brandon Lewis]

The Home Secretary’s decision involved looking at a wide range of documents and considering a wide range of factors. Ultimately, however, the core of the decision was the question of what was in the wider public interest, and we have decided that an inquiry is not in the wider public interest.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and encouraged me to present the evidence that I had been given by one of my local councillors, Mike Freeman. He was a serving officer in Greater Manchester police whose whistleblowing about the corrupt practices in South Yorkshire featured in an edition of the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme. This Government did not have Mike’s back. Would the Minister like to apologise for the personal cost that he has suffered?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I have said, the Home Secretary looked at a wide range of documents and considered a wide range of factors, and that included meeting the campaigners. We are determined to ensure that whistleblowers are properly protected, which is why we are seeking to increase their protections. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that, along with the Police and Crime Bill and our work with the IPCC.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does it not strike the Minister as odd that Labour Members are using part of their Opposition day tomorrow to debate police officers’ safety? They seem to have forgotten that 32 years ago individual police officers from up and down the country, including Northamptonshire, faced an unprecedented wave of picket-line violence from yobs, led by trade unions, without the protective equipment that police officers have today. Yes, it was ugly; yes, it was violence, and those unfortunate events happened on both sides. However, to spend millions of pounds on investigating events of 32 years ago when things have moved on would be a waste of time.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of the safety and security of our police, which we will debate tomorrow. It is right for people to appreciate that our forces police by consent, which is why I think that the reforms that have taken place over the past few decades are so important, and why I think that we must continue those reforms. We want a police force that we can continue to be proud of and continue to rate as the best in the world, and we want to make sure that our police officers are safe as well. That does not detract from the fact that both the Home Secretary and I fully appreciate the strength of feeling on all sides of the debate. Nevertheless, the decision about Orgreave had to be about what was in the wider public interest. That is the decision that the Home Secretary has made, and rightly so.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign is supported by people throughout the United Kingdom, including many of my constituents. Yesterday’s decision ultimately means that South Yorkshire police will not be held to account for their actions and required to answer the serious allegation that they were deliberately trying to create circumstances in which riot charges would stick, a narrative that was briefed to the then Prime Minister and her Cabinet. In the absence of an inquiry or an independent review, how do the Government intend to deal with that very serious allegation?

[Brandon Lewis]

If there are allegations and new evidence, the IPCC chair repeated to me yesterday what it has said publicly: it will look at any new evidence and take it into account in any decisions it makes moving forward. In particular, there are still ongoing investigations and potential criminal proceedings linked to Hillsborough. This is also why it is important that we not only continue to deliver the reforms outlined over the last 30 years, and in particular the last five or six years, but we continue the reform of the police service, especially working with South Yorkshire police on its relationships with its local community.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I was very young during the miners strike but I do know Nottinghamshire’s former coalfield communities today; I represent some of them. Those communities are still suffering in many respects from the miners strike. They are suffering from ill health, low levels of employment, addiction and many other problems. As so little is to be gained from having this inquiry, would it not be better if we all now concentrate on the present and the future?

[Brandon Lewis]

There is an important point here as this highlights why the Prime Minister is right to state that we as a Government need to work to ensure we deliver a country that works for everybody, so everyone in those communities— communities I worked in myself a decade or more ago—has the chance to succeed in life. We must always learn the lessons of the past. That is why the reforms over the last three decades and the reforms going forward are so important in making sure we continue to have a first-class police force in this country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The police and crime commissioner in South Yorkshire, Dr Alan Billings, has made it absolutely clear that he does not want to begin the process of building a new future for South Yorkshire police by sweeping under the carpet the problems of the past. Will the Minister specifically say whether he and the Home Secretary have looked at the evidence of masonic links involved in the cover-up at Orgreave and whether they are the same masonic links that were evident in the cover-up at Hillsborough?

[Brandon Lewis]

I repeat what I said earlier this afternoon: the Home Secretary has considered a number of factors in the decision, including a wide range of documents and arguments put forward in the campaign submission. [Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Front Bench are saying this has already been said, but that might be because I am being asked the same question in effect time and again. No matter how many times I am asked, I will be clear to Opposition Members that the Home Secretary has looked at a wide range of issues in making her decision. [Interruption.] I say specifically on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the PCC, if Opposition Front Benchers will allow him to hear what I am saying, that Dr Alan Billings makes an important point about wanting to move forward with a fresh start for the new leadership of South Yorkshire police. My hon. Friends have made that point, and when I spoke to the PCC yesterday he was clear about his determination to have transparency and to have an archivist work through the archives to get as much as possible out into the public domain to help us move forward. The relationship with the public of South Yorkshire is important.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, although there was of course a tragedy at Orgreave and there were abuses almost certainly on both sides, justice delayed is justice denied, and it would have been better to have had this inquiry 15 years after the event rather than waiting 31 years, when so many people are retired or have died, and it would be inappropriate to have it now?

[Brandon Lewis]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but the reasoning behind the Home Secretary’s decision comes from looking at the wider public interest. There were no wrongful convictions and no deaths and, importantly, the changes in policing over the last three decades mean policing has moved on, and we need to continue those reforms.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that there were no wrongful convictions because the case the police fabricated against those 95 miners collapsed because of the fabricated evidence? Does he not accept that there was then no accountability for the senior officers in South Yorkshire police, including the chief constable at the time, who led that arrangement to fit people up wrongly? Five years later, that same cadre of senior officers was responsible for fabricating evidence against fans after the Hillsborough disaster. Yes, that did lead to 96 deaths, but the denial of justice over so many years for the Hillsborough families and those affected by the events at Hillsborough might never have happened if the chief constable and his senior cadre of officers had been held to account for what happened at Orgreave, but they were not.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady has in effect outlined why it has been so important to have those reforms in how policing works and that local accountability over the last three decades. Her point about Hillsborough is right, and criminal proceedings may well come out of that with the IPCC, but that is because the reforms and changes through the IPCC and further reforms in the Policing and Crime Bill and the PCCs have changed the landscape of policing. It has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, and that forms a part of the Home Secretary’s right decision that it is not in the public interest to have a public inquiry.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In 1984 I sat on these Benches representing the coalmining communities of Cannock and Burntwood. At that time my constituents working at Lea Hall and Littleton collieries were being subjected to the kind of intimidation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has mentioned, including the throwing of bags of urine by striking south Wales miners as my constituents attempted to go to work. So does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that Orgreave was in fact a violent attempt to prevent the British Steel Corporation from going about its lawful business and furthermore a naked political attempt to bring down the Government of Margaret Thatcher, and that since then trade union relations and industrial relations have been transformed out of all recognition, to the betterment of this country?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights the strength of feeling on both sides about issues that happened decades ago, and also highlights again that, hugely importantly, the police have reformed. There are still reforms going forward that we need to see through, and I hope we will all be working together in the years ahead to deliver them.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The jobs of ordinary police officers, many of whom came from mining families, were made difficult for many years after the miners strike precisely because of the misuse of police by the state. Is that not the fundamental issue here? Zimbabwe, China and Venezuela are three countries that have recently used the police to undermine individual rights and freedoms. How do we know that senior politicians were not involved, as the Cabinet papers have not been revealed and there is no longer going to be an inquiry? When will we know, for better or for worse, what senior politicians did and what pressure they brought to bear on the police?

[Brandon Lewis]

A large number of historical files on Orgreave and the miners strike are already publicly available through the National Archives. Also, as I have said, the PCC for South Yorkshire is employing an archivist to look at publishing even more from its archives, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take a great interest in that. He should also work with us and endorse the reforms to the police service that will lead to that key important result that Members have mentioned: that the new leadership of South Yorkshire police is able to find a way to build a new relationship with the people of South Yorkshire and to continue the work the police do every day, policing by consent.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

It is with great sadness that I hear Conservative Members saying that an inquiry is neither justified nor needed. I wonder how many said the same prior to the Hillsborough inquiry. We on this side of the House will continue our fight for justice and truth for those affected in Orgreave.

[Brandon Lewis]

I would just draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the inquiries and work that this Government have done to bring injustice to the surface. We have a good track record of making sure we unearth things but ultimately always making a decision that is in the wider public interest.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Prime Minister’s own chief of staff, Nick Timothy, is on record as saying:

“If the police pre-planned a mass, unlawful assault on the miners at Orgreave and then sought to cover up what they did and arrest people on trumped up charges, we need to know.”

He is absolutely right. Why are the Government stopping us knowing?

[Brandon Lewis]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman read through the evidence that is out there—that is published in the National Archives and being published by South Yorkshire police—and reads the full IPCC report on its investigation as well as the paperwork from the campaigners themselves. These are all part of the wide range of sources that we and the Home Secretary have looked at in making a decision on what is in the wider public interest.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is incumbent on every Member of the House to fight for truth and justice when lies and injustice have been exposed. The Home Secretary is denying us a public inquiry into the Orgreave tragedy, and the Scottish Government are denying us an inquiry in Scotland on the policing and convictions relating to the injustices that happened there during the miners strike. Can the public of this country therefore conclude that the Governments that are democratically elected to represent them here and in Scotland are no longer interested in fighting for justice even when new information becomes available?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I have said, if new information becomes available, the IPCC will look into investigating it. I had that conversation with the chairman of the IPCC yesterday, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made on that earlier this afternoon. I would also like to think that the public will look at the track record of the Government, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister in taking on vested interests and making difficult decisions. This has been a difficult decision. The Home Secretary has made a decision that we believe is in the wider public interest, and it is the right decision.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Trust is crucial to policing, and the image of mounted police officers cantering towards the striking miners is seared on the imagination of everyone who has seen it. This is a huge issue of public interest, as are the allegations of political interference in policing in our country. Does the Minister not recognise the damage that the Secretary of State’s failure to hold an investigation and to stand up for justice is having on public confidence in her Department?

[Brandon Lewis]

The IPCC has held an investigation, and if there is new evidence, it will look at the potential for further investigations. That is a matter for the IPCC, which is, by definition, independent. The hon. Lady also touched on the point that our police forces police by consent in this country. That is a two-way thing. In fact, we will be debating that subject tomorrow. It is important that the police and crime commissioner and the new leadership of the South Yorkshire police look at how they build that relationship with the public. It is also important that we and the public respect the police, as they continue to police us by consent. No doubt that will be part of the debate tomorrow afternoon.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there should have been an inquiry earlier, because papers on Orgreave were still being released up to Christmas 2015. Those papers prompted calls for an inquiry because they showed an abuse of power in South Yorkshire police and the concocting of statements. Yes, no one was killed at Orgreave but lives were ruined and innocent people were sent to jail on remand. More importantly, in the mining areas that I know well—I am the direct descendant of generations of miners—trust in the police was completely destroyed in communities where children were previously brought up to trust and support the police. Until there is an inquiry, those wrongs cannot be righted. How can the Minister possibly keep denying us one?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady looks at what I have said this afternoon, she will see that I have not commented on what the previous Government did or did not do. I have stated specifically that that is a matter for those who were members of that Government to comment on, not for me. Our decision is about the Orgreave case, based on the facts that the Home Secretary and I have looked at and the meetings with the families. The hon. Lady talked about the public’s view of South Yorkshire police, and of the police in general, and it is important that we continue with the reforms and ensure that South Yorkshire police have the support they need to rebuild those relationships with the public. That is the outcome that should be right for people across the country. We should continue with the reforms and I hope that she will support us in doing so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The miners from the Rhondda at Orgreave were dressed in T-shirts and plimsolls, and they were batted aside like flies by what felt like a paramilitary operation under political instruction. There are very real questions that the community in the Rhondda is still asking. Who gave those instructions? Has the present Home Secretary seen the operational instructions of the day? Why will she not publish them? Who told the police officers to fabricate evidence and to perjure themselves? The Home Secretary says that there has been no miscarriage of justice, but the people of the Rhondda will conclude that without a proper investigation and full publication, the miscarriage of justice is being done in this House by this Government. [Interruption.]

[Brandon Lewis]

The point that the Home Secretary was making—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is so much yelling from each side of the Chamber that it was difficult for me to hear the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who should be heard by the House—and, indeed, by the world. I also need to hear the response from the Minister, which should also be widely heard. I say to Members on both sides: please, hold your noise.

[Brandon Lewis]

The point that the Home Secretary was making, and that I have made today, is that we have looked at a whole range of factors. The comparison has been made with Hillsborough, but unlike at Hillsborough, there were no deaths or wrongful convictions as a result of Orgreave. Also, policing has changed dramatically in the years since then. That is why the Home Secretary’s decision, which had to be made in the wider public interest, is the right one, despite the fact that there is disagreement on it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Today’s exchanges show that what the Minister has described as the Home Secretary’s “difficult decision” is hardly going to be received as an independent consideration. He has said a lot today about the public interest. Will he tell us which public interest would be compromised or undermined by a demonstrably independent and cost-effective review of these signal events?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is a very good question. This reminds me of a question I asked when I met the campaigners. I asked what they were hoping an inquiry would achieve. There were no wrongful convictions to correct, and there were no deaths to investigate. There was, however, a question about police behaviour. We can learn the lessons of the past and look at the behaviour, performance, structures and working of the police for the future. Things have changed dramatically in the past three decades, from the reforms in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 right through to the ones that we are introducing today. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to support us in our work on continuing with these important reforms.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Many of those campaigning for an inquiry into Orgreave drew hope from the result of the Hillsborough inquiry. Is the real reason that no inquiry will be allowed in this instance the fact that the Government fear that it would show that, unlike at Hillsborough, the police conspired in advance and initiated the confrontations, which would undoubtedly lead to questions about Government involvement?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I have said, there are considerable differences between the two situations. The basis on which the Government’s decision on an inquiry into Orgreave was made was whether it would be in the wider public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

As the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear, law enforcement co-operation with our European partners will continue after the UK leaves the EU. We will do what is necessary to keep our people safe. At the Home Office we are exploring all options for co-operation once the UK has left the EU, but it is currently too early to speculate on what future arrangements may look like.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I press him? Have the Government decided whether they will seek to retain the European arrest warrant after we leave the EU, and has the Home Secretary had some stern words with the Brexit Secretary, who voted against it only two years ago? Also, have the Government decided to sign up to the new Europol regulations, and if not, when are they going to do so? If they miss the January deadline for that, there could be some severe implications for our membership; what would they be?

[Brandon Lewis]

The decision on whether we opt into the further Europol regulations will be announced to Parliament shortly. We will take that decision very soon; we are giving good consideration to where we are on that and will make an announcement to Parliament in due course.

The hon. Lady is right that the European arrest warrant provides a basis for a swift, and indeed cost-effective, extradition process across member states, but I will not presume what may or may not be in an agreement. We are in the early days of negotiations and will be going through that over the Brexit period.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

While some seem to want to water down the referendum result and drag us back into the EU, if not necessarily by name, does the Minister agree that co-operation on security, and particularly cross-border security, is important, and that when we take back control we must ensure that we keep that very important co-operation that keeps us safe and secure?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our co-operation and membership of Europol will obviously continue in full with us as a full and strong contributing member of Europol, which of course predates the European institutions. We have been very clear that our co-operation with member states, and our determination to ensure the security and protection of the people of this country, will continue when we are no longer a member of the EU.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

After the Paris Metro bombing in 1995 it took 10 years to extradite Rachid Ramda from the UK, but after the London tube bombings in 2005 it took just 56 days to extradite Hussain Osman from Italy to the UK. The difference in time in bringing murderous terrorists to justice was a result of the European arrest warrant. I cannot believe that the Minister will not guarantee that, however Brexit is negotiated by this Government, there is no question whatsoever of our ending our commitment to the European arrest warrant. Can he please guarantee to the House today that the European arrest warrant will continue?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Lady for trying to tempt me into pre-judging what other EU member states may decide to agree to as part of the negotiations. We will be negotiating and I can guarantee that we will continue to put the security and protection of the people of this country absolutely first and foremost.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to protect people from fraud and its effect on families and communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What steps she is taking to ensure that vulnerable people are given adequate protection when facing extradition orders.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

A judge must consider various statutory bars to extradition. It must be refused if a judge finds that it would be incompatible with a person’s human rights or an individual’s physical or mental condition, meaning that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister knows that the law has changed and the Home Secretary can no longer intervene in these cases. When young people are on the autism spectrum or suffering from mental health challenges, can we make sure that court officials, especially judges, understand their circumstances and challenges better? I am referring particularly to the case of Lauri Love.

[Brandon Lewis]

Without commenting on that particular case, which is before me at the moment—I will be making a decision by mid-November—the hon. Gentleman is right that those are the kinds of things that judges need to look at. They are the things that the judicial system does look at, and that is one of things that has come out of the change that was made when Parliament voted on this not that long ago.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

We are experiencing a cut of over 30% to fire and rescue services funding, with 10,000 jobs lost. Rescues are at an all-time high, with firefighters carrying out, on average, more than 100 rescues per day. Speed is essential when responding, but with fewer firefighters and fewer fire stations, the possibility of a slow response could mean the loss of life. Will the Minister acknowledge that now is the time to invest in the fire and rescue services and stop the reckless cuts—to prioritise saving lives, not saving money?

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I also take this opportunity to express my sympathy to all those affected by the recent devastating fires in Exeter, Birmingham, Doncaster and Cheshire, and to thank the firefighters for their efforts. They do save lives every day, as she outlined.

The hon. Lady should bear in mind that authorities still have more that they can do to reduce costs, as they say themselves. Over the past few weeks I have been talking at many conferences at which people have recognised the need to improve procurement and work collaboratively. She should also bear in mind that, since 2010, fire authorities’ non-ring-fenced reserves have managed to rise by 150%. There is still money so that we can ensure that authorities find future efficiencies.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

T2. One area that we have not covered today is rural crime. Many farmers in my constituency are greatly concerned about the prospect of becoming a victim of rural crime. What more can the Department do to help to reassure farmers that we will keep them and their businesses safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

T3. Essex constabulary and Essex county fire and rescue service have a long track record of working closely together and are seeking to do more of that in the future. What can my right hon. Friend’s Department do to support police and fire services and encourage them to work more collaboratively?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right that we are delivering on our manifesto pledge by allowing, through the Policing and Crime Bill, police and crime commissioners to take on the governance of fire authorities. There is also a statutory duty to collaborate, which applies to all the services that work together. It is important that our police and fire services work closely together, and I know that those in Essex are keen to be at the forefront of that work.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

T6. Lewisham uses the London crime prevention fund to employ officers dedicated to working in a serious youth violence team, but the post-April 2017 funding levels are not clear. How will the Minister ensure that serious youth violence work is properly funded regionally so that it is delivered at a local level?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady raises a point that is an aspect of our annual funding formula. This year’s decision will take place after the autumn statement and the House will vote on it in February. We have also delivered our manifesto pledge by announcing that we will review the police funding formula. I have written to, and am engaging with, all chief constables and, indeed, police and crime commissioners across the country.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

T5. Police officers across this nation put their bodies on the line when protecting us. Some 23,000 officers were assaulted last year and sentences do not appear to be acting as a deterrent. Can Ministers assure me that they are liaising with other Departments to challenge sentencing guidelines and to vest in the Attorney General the power to challenge unduly lenient sentences?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, about which both the Home Secretary and I feel very strongly. We had an Adjournment debate about the issue the week before last. It is important that people acknowledge that police officers should be respected. They police by consent, which is unique to our country; we should be proud of that. My hon. Friend is right that sentencing should reflect the crime. I am in discussions with colleagues in other Departments, including on whether we prosecute for a criminal offence or under police Acts. There are some issues that we need to look at, but it is right that police officers should feel that they are respected and safe in their job.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

T8. Dungavel detention centre should close, but only as part of a wider plan to reduce the use of detention. Is not the Immigration Minister embarrassed to preside over one of the most bloated detention estates in the European Union and the only one without a fixed time limit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Ten days ago, Allan Richards was convicted in Birmingham of the most horrific catalogue of offences against children, some as young as eight. I congratulate West Midlands police on the forensic investigation that brought him to justice, but he was a serving police officer for more than 30 years. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the inquiry into what happened will be independent, that whistleblowers will be given protection and that, if other agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, made mistakes, they will form part of the investigation?

[Brandon Lewis]

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will take on this hugely important case which, by definition, will be an independent investigation. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Policing and Crime Bill will go further by giving even more protection to whistleblowers and more powers to the IPCC to take on and lead such cases without the need for the involvement of, or a recommendation from, the police in the first place. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more detail.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

T9. Given the closure of the Calais camps last week, will Ministers update the House on what steps are being taken to protect migrants against illegal trafficking through the use of lorries on cross-channel ferries such as the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry, which serves my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I am, like many of my Staffordshire colleagues and the Staffordshire police and crime commissioner, incredibly concerned about the business case for Staffordshire fire and rescue service’s proposed life skills centre. Will my hon. Friend the Fire Minister meet me and my Staffordshire colleagues to discuss and review the business case to assess whether it offers value for money?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has raised this case with me. I know that she feels strongly about it, as do colleagues around Staffordshire. I will happily meet her and Staffordshire colleagues to look at the matter. I have also asked the police and crime commissioner, and indeed the chief fire officer and representatives from the fire authority, to talk to us about this process and exactly how they are delivering on it.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said earlier that the lack of any miscarriages of justice was one of the reasons why she would not instigate an inquiry into Orgreave. She will be aware, of course, that 95 miners were charged, and that many were remanded in custody and went through difficult trials based on charges and evidence that later collapsed. Will she reconsider what she has said about injustice and, given her predecessor’s record of a whole series of inquiries and reviews in cases where injustice was suspected, will the Home Secretary think again about her decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

As part of a comprehensive strategy to improve the resilience of our fire and rescue services, it is necessary to take all reasonable steps to stop fires from starting in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend therefore liaise with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the long-awaited review of building regulations takes place, and that our strategy on the installation of fire sprinklers is brought into line with those of other countries?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government hear what he says. There are suppression products other than sprinklers that builders can use, but we are keen to make sure that homes continue to be safe. That is one reason why the number of fires is now, fortunately, pretty much at a historically low level.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

May I take the Home Secretary back to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)? She said that people should not “leap to anger”, but I can tell her that people have been angry about Orgreave for 30 years. Specifically, Margaret Aspinall has said:

“We will never have the full truth about Hillsborough until we have the full truth about Orgreave.”

Will the Home Secretary agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who asked for full disclosure, and will she please, because this is never going away, just think again?

Criminal Finances Bill

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for this informed and valuable debate. We have heard strong and important contributions, and there has been support from both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. We will have interesting and strong discussions in Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security emphasised at the start of the debate, there can be no doubt about the seriousness of the threats of terrorism and organised crime, or about the scale of the challenge that we face in combating them. As of July last year, about 5,800 organised crime groups were operating in the UK. Fraud due to organised crime is thought to cost this country about £9 billion, and the social and economic costs of illegal drug supplies are estimated to be some £10.7 billion a year. As has been said, these are not faceless, victimless crimes; they have an impact on people we know and those who live in our constituencies.

As we have heard, the UK is a fantastic place to do business, and the Government want to maintain that. We want to send out a clear message across the country that we are open for business, but if we are to maintain our position, we must ensure that this is one of the cleanest and safest places to invest. We need to send a message to those who would seek to corrupt legitimate trade.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) to her Front-Bench role. I also welcome the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) to their roles. I was pleased to hear that the Minister for Security has had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the official Opposition and Scottish National party Members prior to the debate—indeed, some of the paperwork was shared some two months ago—and I know that we will continue that conversation during the passage of the Bill.

It is clear that Members on both sides of the House want to contribute to make sure that we end up with a robust, strong system of which this country will be proud. Almost without exception, hon. Members who have spoken have understood the importance of these powers and been supportive of the Bill. Of course, it is right that on such issues as money laundering and terrorist finance, the House should present a united front, as it is doing on the principle behind the Bill. I welcome the fact that in our consultation on the Bill, a diverse group of stakeholders—ranging from the major banks, which have been mentioned today, to law enforcement investigators, prosecutors and civil society groups—have given an overwhelmingly positive response to its provisions.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I apologise that I was not able to contribute to the debate itself. I am afraid that I am a veteran of the consideration of the Bill that became the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Although I accept that there is a great deal of unity regarding some of this Bill’s provisions, the real issue is how enforceable those provisions are. It is important that the Bill is scrutinised very carefully in Committee because there is a danger that although we will put on to the statute book a lot of new laws, some of which might be regarded as rather draconian, they will not be properly enforced by the police, or will be ruled out by the judiciary when matters come to court. That is the one caveat I would set out, although it is right to say that these powers are important, especially the new ones in relation to counter-terrorism, which were not envisaged at the time of the 2002 Act.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly by outlining the importance of the Bill’s Committee stage to ensure that Members have a chance to have an input into the debate, as indeed they have had this afternoon. He should have great faith in my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, who is determined to work with colleagues to ensure that the Bill is robust. The Bill gives a clear message to those who want to try to usurp our system that that will not continue—we will not allow it. Although we are a country that is open for business, we are also a country that believes in fairness and that will ensure that fairness prevails.

A couple of core issues have been raised by a number of Members, particularly about the overseas territories. We heard speeches from the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and the former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have agreed that UK law enforcement and tax authorities will have, in real time, unrestricted and secure access to things such as the beneficial ownership initiative, and information about corporate and legal entities incorporated in the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.

The right hon. Lady outlined the excellent work of David Cameron and the strong message that he gave when he was Prime Minister. This is something that the current Prime Minister is determined to continue. We will ensure that there is an end to people usurping the law. It is important that we work closely with our colleagues around the world to ensure that we have a strong and robust system. We have taken a lead on this. Those territories have agreed that they must commit to new global standards in tax transparency so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can investigate any untoward activity. As a result, later this year, HMRC will have new data on billions of pounds of accounts held in the overseas territories by UK taxpayers. This is a big step forward. I know that we as a Government are determined to ensure that we stamp out that kind of behaviour.

Funding was mentioned by a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The NCA’s funding has increased from £448 million to nearly £478 million over the past year and police budgets have been protected. Funding for HMRC has also increased—up to £3.6 billion, with the £241 million input that was mentioned earlier.

I can be clear that we are determined to ensure that the police and the NCA have the resources that they need to be able to look at all this in the round, including IT issues. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I use the debate to discuss the police funding formula, but he will have to excuse me for resisting that temptation for now. Over the past few weeks, I have written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners to ask them to come to talk to me as we seek to deliver our election manifesto commitment of a fair funding formula for police, which we will do.

In response to comments about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, I am pleased to announce that the British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have just—conveniently, as I am here at the Dispatch Box this afternoon—committed themselves to the initiative on beneficial ownership, which many hon. Members have spoken about today. All the overseas territories have now agreed to have central registries, which will be accessible to law enforcement authorities. We will continue to push for all countries to introduce public registers. This is good news, and we will continue to work on it.

[Richard Arkless]

Clearly, I am delighted to hear the good news that the Minister has just given. Can he confirm whether his announcement confirms that those registers will be published?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, we will continue to push for all countries to introduce public registers. This is a step in the right direction. I welcome it, and we acknowledge that we want to continue to work on this. Another issue raised by his good self, as well as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) and others, was about Scottish limited partnerships. I hope that they will take into account the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security intervened to say that we want to work on that with colleagues across Parliament. We have very much taken those points on board.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) spoke passionately and made incisive contributions. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden outlined the Bill’s importance given the part that it will play in ensuring that we fight the funding of extremism. We have discussed the Bill’s vital importance in protecting the UK’s position and status as a global financial centre and in ensuring that criminals cannot benefit from the proceeds of their crimes. I expect and hope that right hon. and hon. Members will want to give in-depth scrutiny to the Bill, as they have suggested this afternoon, as we move on to clause-by-clause examination in Committee, and I look forward to a lively debate on its provisions.

I am proud that, by comparison to most European countries, we are positioned high in the league table for having a strong and independent judiciary, as well as a determined law enforcement environment. If we are to maintain our record and position, we always need to stay one step ahead of those who seek to undermine our attempts, especially in such a fast-moving global environment. That is why the Bill is so important, why it is reassuring that it has received principled, cross-party support in the House, as that sends a clear message, and why we must ensure that law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to combat the ability of criminals to launder the proceeds of their crimes, as well as to tackle terrorism financing and to bring more offenders to justice. I hope that the House will agree that that is in the public interest and that the Bill should be passed at the earliest opportunity with clear, continued cross-party support. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Criminal Finances Bill (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Finances Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24 November 2016.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Andrew Griffiths.)

Question agreed to.

Criminal Finances Bill (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Finances Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or a government department; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Police Officer Safety

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing this debate on such an important subject. It is good to see so many Members here tonight.

Last month, the Home Secretary and others paid their respects at events to mark National Police Memorial Day, a day that not only enables us to pay tribute to fallen officers but serves as a stark reminder of the dangers that the police face daily. The hon. Lady ably outlined examples of those dangers this evening. As she said, this is an issue with which she has been particularly concerned since her experience shadowing members of West Yorkshire police force in her constituency this summer. Many of us spend time with the police in our own constituencies, and I visit forces all around the country. We can see the phenomenal work that members of our police service do daily and the challenges that they face in our communities.

This has been a good debate, with a speech from the hon. Lady and interventions from other right hon. and hon. Members. I think we can all agree that police officers should be able to carry out their duties without fear of assault. Let me be clear that assaulting a police officer is completely unacceptable, and anyone who is found guilty can expect to face the full force of the law.

It is important that we have a good understanding of the scale of the issue, so that chief officers can do everything in their power to keep their officers safe. We have been working for some time to improve the data available. As a first step, it was right that provisional statistics of officer assaults were published in July, despite the limitations of those data. The figures indicated that in 2015-16, there were an estimated 23,000 assaults on officers across all forces. The data also indicated that there were nearly 8,000 assaults involving injury reported by officers, and 270 reported by police community support officers.

We will continue to build on that work, and we need to make it clear that it is completely unacceptable to commit an offence against a police officer. It is not good enough for people to say that such incidents are part of the cost of a police officer going about their business. That is simply not the case, and we need to put a stop to it. We need to ensure that the public understand that a police officer is to be respected and is there to serve the community. They keep us all safe.

I can assure the hon. Lady that sentencing guidelines already provide for an assault on a police officer to be treated more severely in appropriate cases. There are also two offences specific to assaults on police officers where there is little or no physical harm. Assaults resulting in more serious injuries would result in a charge of actual bodily harm or a more serious offence. In those cases, sentencing will largely be guided by the level of harm and offender culpability. In the most serious cases, where an individual is convicted of the murder of a police officer in the course of duty, a whole life order will now be the sentencing starting point, thanks to the work of the previous Home Secretary, as laid out in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. That was a landmark change, and one that the Police Federation had campaigned long and hard for on behalf of their members. It is right, as the hon. Lady outlined, that the courts still have the discretion, through the independence of the judiciary, to take account of all the circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate sentence. It is right for them to have that ability to assess in any given case, based on the facts of the case, what is the most appropriate sentence. She is also quite right to say that the Sentencing Council has a role to play in the sentencing guidelines, and that it is an independent body.

The hon. Lady touched on resources. I remind her that there has been a good deal for policing with direct resource funding to police and crime commissioners, including the precept, being protected this year. Ultimately, all decisions about local policing resources and roles are for chief constables, held to account by their locally accountable PCCs.

Single-crewing falls into the operational duty and decisions of local chief constables. Chiefs and PCCs have a duty to manage and support the police working effectively, ensuring the welfare of all officers and staff.

[Holly Lynch]

Does the Minister recognise that with the number of 999 calls to a lot of our forces, sometimes it is a choice between sending a lone officer or nobody, because those forces are that stretched?

[Brandon Lewis]

As we are limited to a few seconds of time, I will have to say that, in another place and at another opportunity, I will go through how the changing police force means that the work they are doing is changing. Having more officers on the frontline with their time focused on working with communities is a good thing. There is also the work with the College of Policing. I know that chief constables will continue to do what they can to ensure that they keep their people safe and enable them to work confidently to tackle the challenges of modern crime. We will continue to support them in this.

There is much more that I and probably other Members would like to say on this issue, but we are time-constrained. I will leave it there, but I look forward to speaking to the hon. Lady and the gentlemen who have come to watch us this evening straight after this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Airguns (Under-18s)

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir David. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on securing the debate, as it is on not just an important subject but one that I know he cares passionately about. He has been concerned about and has been working on the issue for some time following the tragic death of his young constituent, as well as during his time at the Home Office. It is worth noting that, sadly, only this month a young man aged just 19 died from injuries sustained from an air weapon, which again brings home to us the seriousness of any kind of weapon.

The right hon. Gentleman outlined some very important points. We can all agree that gun controls are needed to minimise the risk of harm to the public. The regulation of air weapons has long been a matter of passionate debate, with lawful users arguing that they should be allowed to enjoy their property without unnecessary restrictions, and those who argue for tougher regulation to improve public safety. Public safety is naturally at the top of my agenda as a Home Office Minister, but I am also keenly aware of the need to strike the right balance—and there is a balance to be struck, particularly on weapons that present less risk and that are used in well regulated environments such as shooting clubs.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, this country has some of the most robust firearms regulations in the world. The statistics show that those regulations work and are effective. The number of firearms offences recorded by the police fell by 40% between 2009-10 and 2014-15, including a 40% fall in offences involving air weapons. There were fatalities as a result of those offences in 2014-15, but in that year they were at the lowest level since records began back in 1969. That shows that the regulations are working, but any injury, let alone a fatality, is one that none of us wants to see.

Although offences involving air weapons are often less serious offences, we have to be very clear and make sure that the public are aware that these weapons can cause death or serious injury. In 2014-15, there were no fatalities but there were 37 serious injuries as a result of offences. However, there were small rises in the number of offences involving both air weapons and other weapons last year, and as we have heard this morning, deaths can occur due to both offences and accidents. We must not and cannot be complacent, and that is why we are currently strengthening the legislation further in the Policing and Crime Bill and targeting loopholes often used by criminals. I will return to that point in a moment.

The law recognises that some air weapons are more dangerous than others. Only lower powered air weapons can be held without a licence or certificate. More dangerous air weapons are classed as either civilian section 1 firearms or prohibited section 5 firearms. A licence or certificate is required for section 1 or section 5 firearms and is issued only to suitable persons by the police or the Home Office. The Scotland Act 2012 devolved responsibility for lower powered weapons to the Scottish Government who, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, introduced a licensing regime under the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015. He asked us to bring in a similar scheme here, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the way things are monitored in people’s homes. We have to recognise that Scotland has a different framework of offences, so we are not necessarily comparing like with like.

The misuse of air weapons in this country is caught by the criminal law, and the restrictions in place on the sale and possession of air guns are a proportionate way of protecting public safety. Although no licence is required to possess low-powered air weapons, they are still tightly regulated. As we have discussed, the sale of air weapons, which are firearms, is prohibited to those under 18. Except in special circumstances, under-18s cannot possess them; the exceptions include the use of the weapon as a member of an approved shooting club and being under the supervision of a person who is at least 21. That supervision is important, and we need to ensure we are all educated about it.

It is an offence for a person to trespass with an air weapon or to have one in a public place without a reasonable reason to be there. As well as the criminal use of air weapons, there have been tragic accidents, as the right hon. Member for Delyn outlined, which have sometimes involved young children or teenagers with unsupervised access to air weapons. We are all responsible, if we are in that position, to make sure unsupervised access does not happen.

We recognise that it is important that those who lawfully possess air weapons store and handle them securely and safely. The Home Office provides guidance on the sort of practical steps that can and should be taken to secure air weapons, and on how to handle them. It is an offence for a person to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access to their airguns by those under 18.

[Mr Hanson]

I accept that point, but what are reasonable precautions? For clarity, we should say that air guns should be locked in a secure metal cabinet. That is a reasonable precaution in my view, but there is no definition in the current legislation.

[Brandon Lewis]

It may be necessary to take a higher level of precaution, for example, when an air gun is stored in a house with children. That is a good example of the right hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to recognise what is reasonable. The whole point of having a check of reasonableness is that what is reasonable can vary according to the circumstances. For example, although locking away an airgun when not in use is reasonable for many people in many circumstances, the use of a trigger lock might be sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman and I had a brief conversation about that before this debate. I will take away that point and look at it further, and I will come back to him in writing shortly. We need to get the balance right between reasonableness and ensuring people are safe.

As I said earlier, the Policing and Crime Bill contains a number of provisions to strengthen the regulation of firearms, including a new definition of lethality, which will clarify the law relating to firearms, including air weapons. The Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as

“a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged.”

That makes lethality integral to knowing whether something is a firearm, yet the law does not define what lethality is. That raises a number of problems, which the Bill will resolve by defining lethality as a muzzle kinetic energy of 1 joule. That follows a recommendation by the Firearms Consultative Committee.

We recognise that there are legitimate uses of air weapons, such as shooting sports, so we need to strike a balance, but I am cognisant of the fact that we must keep firearms control under review to ensure that we always do everything we can in a reasonable way to protect public safety. That is why, as I said a few moments ago, I will look at the specific point that the right hon. Gentleman raised about security and the locking away of firearms and weapons as part of a reasonable approach to ensuring we have a safe and secure environment.

[Mr Hanson]

Before the Minister sits down, will he give me a commitment to look at the issue of compulsory trigger locks? The current legislation mentions reasonable precautions, but there is no definition of “reasonable”, no requirement to have a trigger lock and no requirement to have a locked cabinet. I want the Minister to look at those issues seriously and reflect on them.

[Brandon Lewis]

The outline is there for a reasonable approach that will allow flexibility for the authorities and individuals. If somebody owns a gun, they have a responsibility to ensure they are acting in a safe and appropriate manner. What is reasonable in one place can differ from what is reasonable in another. For example, a household that has children is different from a household that does not. The law reflects the need for flexibility. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point on board, and I will look at it and the point about trigger locks. I will write to him shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Review of the Forensic Archive Ltd

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Review of the Forensic Archive Ltd (FAL). FAL was established in October 2012 to manage and maintain material previously held by the Forensic Science Service.

The review makes 10 recommendations, most crucially that the functions of FAL should continue to be carried out and that FAL is the best organisation to do so. It also recommends that the Home Office continue to fund FAL. I agree with these recommendations.

I will place a copy of the review in the Library of the House.

[HCWS137]

Oral Answers to Questions

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

9. If she will review the adequacy of the powers of police community support officers.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

PCSOs have played a key role in policing our communities in recent years and they should play a greater role in the future, which is why the Policing and Crime Bill sets out a series of reforms that will allow chief constables to designate them with a wider range of powers. Obviously, decisions on the size and composition of a police force’s workforce are for individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners.

[Derek Thomas]

St Ives town will be well known to the Minister from his former role as Housing Minister. I am sure that he is glad to be rid of that role, but he has a new problem in St Ives. Sergeant Friday is a popular and influential neighbourhood police officer and a valued member of the local policing team in St Ives. Some 5,000 people support him in his current role, and yet he will soon be moved by Devon and Cornwall police to, in effect, a back-office role. What can the Minister do to support local community policing in St Ives and safeguard front-line policing roles?

[Brandon Lewis]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting an issue that is clearly important to his constituents. This must be an impressive PCSO and sergeant for so many of them to get behind him and sign his form. Obviously, those kinds of operational decisions are for the force’s chief constable, but I will visit my hon. Friend’s area soon and hope I get a chance to meet a sergeant who can endeavour to get that kind of support from his local community.

[Ian C. Lucas]

In Wrexham town centre we have fewer police and more antisocial behaviour under this Government. PCSOs, introduced by a Labour Government, are very welcome and perform a valuable role, but there is a disturbing lack of understanding and clarity about their powers. Will the review that the Government should undertake make clear to the general public and to offenders how important PCSOs are?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about PCSOs being important. They play a key role, which is why I am pleased that their number has increased by about 40% in his part of the world since 2010. It is also important that the Policing and Crime Bill will give chief constables the power to look at what is right for their area and to give powers to PCSOs and other volunteers to do the work that is appropriate for their local area.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I was with one of the few remaining PCSOs in Kettering on Friday for a walkabout in the town, and it would appear that, were it not for the funding provided by Kettering Borough Council, of which I am proud to be a member, there would be no PCSOs at all in the borough of Kettering. Does the Policing Minister agree that PCSOs are vital for developing the intelligence picture locally, and that without them it would be difficult to see how front-line officers could do that?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was a council leader in local government when PCSOs were first introduced, and my council funded them even back then. They play an important part in the remit and powers of chief constables and, indeed, PCCs to make sure that they gather the intelligence they need to prevent crime, which is obviously our first priority.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister must be aware of the survey conducted by Unison which shows that 78% of PCSOs say that they have become less visible, that their units have got smaller and that they have stopped doing patrolling and preventive work and are just doing call-backs on crime for other police officers. Is it not true that PCSOs are no longer doing what we created them for, and that, as a result, our communities feel abandoned by the police?

[Brandon Lewis]

I disagree with the right hon. Lady. She needs to think about the fact that crime is changing, so the way in which police forces fight crime needs to reflect the modern world that we live in and the crime that is happening in local areas. That is why it is absolutely right that the Government have moved crime fighting to be locally driven, with PCCs and chief constables having the powers that they need to fight crime locally in the way they see best.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that the police and security services have the necessary powers to apprehend people planning terrorist attacks in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

13. What plans the Government have to make changes to pre-charge bail.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

The Policing and Crime Bill will introduce statutory safeguards to the pre-charge bail process, including time limits and judicial oversight, which will increase accountability and scrutiny in a way that is manageable for the courts as well.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I have met a now 18-year-old constituent of Lincoln—and his family—who has been on a pre-charge bail for over a year since he was 17. As far as anyone is aware, there has been no admission of guilt, and nor are the police or the CPS in a position to charge or take my constituent to trial, which is yet another disturbing aspect of the case. I am fully aware that this is an operational matter for the police, but my constituent’s rights to a family life and education are currently being detrimentally severely impacted by what I feel is the police’s underfunded and understaffed investigation. Will my hon. Friend please agree to meet me to discuss my constituent’s situation and how police forces across the country can best avoid lengthy periods of pre-charge bail, particularly for young suspects?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not right that some people can spend months or even years on pre-charge bail, with few or no safeguards. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how reforms might affect the case he mentions. We will bring forward further amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that 17-year-olds are treated as children and are safeguarded as such.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

T6. As the Minister will know, last week the Police Federation called for a review of the position regarding police officers and visible tattoos. Can he assure me that the Home Office has no intention of relaxing the current guidelines?

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

Obviously, decisions on whether to recruit individuals are for the chief officer of the police force concerned and each case should be treated on its merits, but I can say that we have no plans to change guidance, and the college guidance is very clear: the candidates

“should not have tattoos which could cause offence…or undermine the dignity and authority”

of the role of the police constable.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

T8. As the Home Secretary knows, leading organisations such as Freedom from Torture are very concerned that the definition of torture used in imminent statutory guidance of adults at risk in immigration detention should be wide enough to cover torture by non-state actors such as Daesh, the Taliban and Boko Haram. Will she agree to meet me to discuss these concerns urgently?

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

T9. Is the Minister willing to meet the Metropolitan police to discuss why they are not willing to meet Councillor Peter Golds and the successful petitioners against Lutfur Rahman’s administration in Tower Hamlets, who have presented a dossier which appears to show damning evidence of criminal intent? These people would like to see why this is not being taken forward by the police.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights an important case, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) did a lot of work on this and is working with Councillor Peter Golds. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend if he feels that would be useful, but this is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and, indeed, commissioners have been put into Tower Hamlets by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Tragically, ex-footballer Dalian Atkinson recently died outside his father’s house in my constituency, following the deployment of Tasers by the police. The officers involved were not wearing bodycams. Does the Minister agree that all police carrying any sort of weapon should wear bodycams to protect both police and public?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend raises a tragic situation. The loss of any life is obviously tragic, and the deployment of body-worn video is an operational matter for police, but I hope she will appreciate that it would be inappropriate of me to comment further as there is an ongoing Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation ahead of the coroner’s inquest.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

A young couple in my constituency from Slovakia who have been in Scotland for 14 years began the process of applying for British citizenship after the Brexit vote. As the Home Secretary will be aware, the first stage is permanent right of residency. The lady in this couple was refused. The Home Secretary says nothing has yet changed, but I cannot understand how an EU national could be refused residency after living here for 14 years.