Knife Crime

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises another important issue on the role that social media might be playing in spreading serious violence. Late last year, I provided £1.4 million of funding for a new social media serious violence hub so that the Metropolitan police can work with social media companies and specifically focus on this very issue. He knows that the Government will shortly be publishing an online harms White Paper, which will also look at this important issue.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that behind every fatal stabbing and shooting is a young person’s future cancelled, and a family left grieving and wondering for the rest of their life, “How could this have been prevented?” He has demonstrated that he knows what needs to be done—it is about interrupting the drugs industry, early intervention and having more police on the street—so why on earth we need yet another consultation is beyond me. What we do need is for him to come back to this House, within the next week, with a definite plan about how to deal with this and proper resources behind the plan. I ask him to do that, because he already knows what needs to be done.

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he talks of the tragic deaths, lives being cut short, all those opportunities that are forever gone and the impact on those families. I think he was referring to the public health approach and asking why it would require a consultation. That is because it is supposed to be a statutory approach. We could have taken the non-statutory route. That would have been quicker, frankly, but I think it would have been less effective because I need every Department—colleagues have mentioned the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education—to make this a priority. We have talked about the experience in the other parts of the UK and in other countries. It has been a statutory approach. With very few exceptions, there is a requirement with such an approach to have a consultation to make sure it is legally watertight.

Merseyside Police Funding

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I, too, say how good it is to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Edward? I add my thanks to Jane Kennedy, the police and crime commissioner for Merseyside and to Merseyside police. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) have given us a comprehensive survey of the current situation, particularly the financial problems that Merseyside police faces, which I will say a bit about in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby made the point that a police officer was stabbed in my constituency, which brings home, sharply and regrettably, the risks that police officers face when going about their everyday business of trying to keep us safe. I will return to knife crime in a minute.

As has already been said, Merseyside police has had to make more than £110 million of savings since 2010 and as a consequence, the police officer establishment has been reduced by 1,120, which is a fall of 24.4%. That must have consequences; it cannot simply be brushed aside as, “Well, we don’t need them.” I want to talk about how some of those consequences affect my constituents.

I will make three points. On gun crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby has already stated the statistics, but I will repeat them for emphasis. In Merseyside, there were 79 firearm discharges in 2018 and 94 firearm discharges in 2017. Of the discharges in 2018, 13—16%—were in Knowsley, and in 2017, 22% were in Knowsley. That means that guns are now considered something relatively normal in some sections of the community, which was unthinkable when I was growing up in the area and cannot be right. There must be some connection between that and the level of policing that Merseyside police can provide.

Knife crime has become commonplace, and 88 knife incidents in Knowsley in one year is really frightening. It is frightening, first, that the knives seem to be readily available, and secondly, that the—mainly young—people who use them seem to think that doing so is perfectly normal. Again, that must be linked to the level of policing provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby rightly referred to the policing model. Neighbourhood policing has now been abandoned, so the intelligence needed to deal with this problem, such as who has the knives, where they are getting them from and all that important information, is not being gathered to the same extent. That is not the police’s fault; they simply do not have the resources.

I will make one further point on knife and gun crime before I move on. This is not unique to Knowsley or to the Merseyside police force area; to a different scale in different places, it exists everywhere. There are a group of young people in this country who will probably not get any GCSEs. Most will get an apprenticeship, find work and make their way in the world. However, there is a sub-group within that who, maybe because of family influence or other influences in the neighbourhood, see a life of crime as being a perfectly normal progression. We need to do much more with those young people, to make them appreciate that, first, that is not normal; secondly, that they have the potential to do other things—really good things in some cases—with their lives; and thirdly, that they need to be in a position where they can provide for a family in later life, and not by the haphazard means of the proceeds of crime.

My second point is on antisocial behaviour. Merseyside police says, and the statistics show, that there has been a recent 32% reduction in the number of reported incidents of antisocial behaviour—[Interruption.] I have to say that that is not my experience as a local MP, and I can see from the reaction of my hon. Friends that they feel the same. I simply say that I held two advice surgeries on Friday evening—one in Huyton and one in Kirkby—and most of the cases brought to me were in some way related to antisocial behaviour.

I also think that the term “antisocial behaviour” often does not properly describe the sort of problems we are talking about. For example, with the local social housing provider, Knowsley Housing Trust, I have been dealing with a case of a woman in north Huyton who cannot step out of the door without a volley of abuse being thrown at her by neighbours. The police might classify that as a neighbourly dispute, but when someone is literally afraid to step out of the door because of the abuse they will get from neighbours, that is serious.

People have a right to a reasonably quiet life in which they should not expect daily abuse to be normal, yet in some cases it is. There are people in housing need who might be in a perfectly nice, well-maintained house that they pay the rent on, but they want to move out to get away from the trouble. That cannot be right. There cannot be places in this country where those subjected to antisocial behaviour feel that the only way they can escape it is to move house. Again, it comes back to whether the policing resources are there to deal with the problem. The police are honest about that and say there are not.

There is some light at the end of that particular tunnel, certainly in Knowsley. Knowsley Council, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is aware, is looking within its resources to see what more support it can provide to the police to get on top of antisocial behaviour. However, should that be the responsibility of the local authority?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

Yes!

[Mr Howarth]

The Minister nods her head and says yes from a sedentary position. Perhaps up to a point she is right, but at the end of the day Knowsley Council does not have the powers to intervene in such cases without the support of the police. All it can do is to help to point the police in the right direction, perhaps building up a case with some evidence, but in the end it has to be a policing matter.

Finally, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby and for Garston and Halewood in that I welcome the increase in the precept and that it is not how policing should be paid for. The increase will not have the impact that we need, but nevertheless I welcome it. Late last week, Merseyside police announced that they were going to downgrade Kirkby police station in my constituency, so that it will be open to the public on only two days a week. I recognise that we do not want police to sit in police stations; we want them out on the streets doing things. To be honest, however, if people want to report a crime, to get into a dialogue with the police about antisocial behaviour that they are experiencing or to give information on gun and knife crime when PCSOs are not out and about on the streets, the only place they can do so is at the police station.

I also question the way that the announcement was made on social media. The local councillors and I were alerted to the announcement on social media, but was that any consultation whatever? Is that any way in which to do it? I know why the police had to do it—because they have problems with resources—but I question the method.

A group of local councillors has been invited to meet Merseyside police tomorrow. Those councillors will put the case against the downgrade strongly. The leader of the council, Councillor Graham Morgan, has written to Jane Kennedy, and I will quote from what he said, because I agree with him. This relates back to the decision about the increase in the precept:

“The Chief Constable, and yourself for that matter, had the opportunity to let Cllr Aston know that you were planning the same thing for Kirkby ahead of her formally considering your Precept proposal on Knowsley’s behalf. Nothing at all was mentioned!

As you know, Cllr Aston moved the proposal and Knowsley reluctantly supported you, noting that colleagues in St Helens were not in a position to do so given the issues relating to Newton Police Station”—

which my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) raised in a debate in this very Chamber. The letter continues:

“I ask myself would we have taken this course of action”—

to vote for the increase in the precept—

“if we were made aware that we too were going to see a reduction, almost identical to that faced by our colleagues in St Helens?”

For the leader of Knowsley Council, the sort of person who tries to be reasonable with everyone, to write in such strong terms is an indication of how annoyed the community are about that. I share that annoyance. When the police meet the local councillors tomorrow, I hope that they will reach a solution that does not involve virtually closing down Kirkby police station for most of the week.

Unless Ministers appreciate the terrible circumstances in which the police have to operate throughout the Merseyside police force area, and do so quickly, I am afraid that we will have this debate repeatedly, with some of the problems that we are concerned about just going up and up. That cannot be right.

Police Grant Report

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I agree with him on one specific point: we really do need a better understanding of why mental health is a problem within crime and of how it should be dealt with more appropriately than is currently the case.

I do at least agree with the Home Secretary on two points. First, he was right to pay tribute to the work that the police do on behalf of us and our communities. It is only the police who take the risk of trying their best to protect us. Secondly, I agree that it is his job to keep the people of this country and our communities safe. However, the sad fact is that although he acknowledges that that is the case, he does not seem to do much about trying to turn it into reality.

Much of what I say will be about facts and figures, but it is important to say that behind those facts and figures lie some incredibly terrible human tragedies. I will talk about knife crime in a moment. That is about a young life lost needlessly and, more than that, about a family who, for the rest of their lives, will be left asking, “What if?” We must always be mindful that while facts and figures tell one story, the effect on people’s lives is often much more pronounced and vivid than the figures alone show.

First, inevitably, I want to talk about funding for Merseyside police. My hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) both referred, in slightly different ways, to the way in which the loss of central Government funding has affected policing in our constituencies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) made a similar point about the closure of a police station in his constituency as an example of how things play out on the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood rightly pointed out that since 2010-11, the Merseyside police force has lost £90,396,258 of central Government funding. That is a lot of money, and it has consequences. It means that we have lost over 1,000 police officers, which must have an impact on crime. We have lost over 200 PCSOs, and that in itself must have an impact on crime, at least in the sense of how the police get information about what is going on in communities. We cannot hide from the fact that there has to be a direct relationship between police on the ground and the ability to deal with crime.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right when he pointed out in an intervention on the Home Secretary that the additional money that the Government have provided will mostly cover only the additional cost of pensions. On Merseyside, of the £8.8 million of additional money that will be provided through the central Government grant, which is of course welcome, £7.8 million will go directly to plugging the gap in pensions.

At the same time, we are experiencing steep rises in very serious crimes. On Merseyside, over the past 12 months, knife crime has increased by 32%. I have talked about the impact of that on young lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and I, along with others, want to get into a discussion with the Government about how the problem can be better dealt with by giving young people alternatives to a life of crime and by providing the police with the ability to intervene more effectively. After many attempts, we have not even been able to get a meeting with the Policing Minister. I have asked him in previous debates to meet me to discuss this, but answer comes there none. There has also been a massive 47% rise in domestic abuse, which means that whole families are in terrible crisis, with terrible problems.

There is so much more to say, but to keep within the limits you have set, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by simply saying this. The Government have done too little too late to resolve the problem that our communities and police forces face. Frankly, if the first job of the Government and the Home Secretary is to deal with community safety, I am afraid that this settlement goes nowhere near assuring people that they will be able to carry out that duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Divisions do exist. Labour is desperate to assert its narrative that cuts have consequences. On this side of the House, we know that the cuts were the consequence of a Labour Government yet again running out of public money so that tough decisions had to be taken. There is an artificial debate about the balance between the contribution from central and local taxpayers. If we want more money in policing, we have to pay, and the hypocrisy of this—from a Labour party that doubled council tax when it was in power—is overwhelming.

The common ground is that Members on both sides of the House recognise the increased pressure on the police and want to provide additional support to them. That is exactly what the settlement does.

[Mr Howarth]

The Minister offers us the tempting prospect of finding common ground, but does he not realise that the common ground he asks us to step on to is actually sinking sand?

[Mr Hurd]

As I have said, I am more than happy to meet the Merseyside MPs, but this settlement is set up to increase public investment in our police service by up to £970 million. If it is voted through tonight, it means that we will invest more than £2 billion more next year than we did three years ago. How that can be presented as a cut is beyond me. What the public will note is that the Labour party has fought us every step of the way—it voted against the settlement last year and it intends to vote against it tonight. Labour is apparently blind to the fact that while we are committing to almost £2 billion of investment in the police service next year, its commitment is for £780 million over the life of this Parliament.

Police Funding Settlement

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. He is entirely right, and I will be sitting down with Pinner residents tomorrow to discuss exactly their concerns about the spike in aggravated burglary. The police response, to their credit, has been good, including enhanced neighbourhood team working and enhanced advice on crime prevention. One of the gangs in the case has been disrupted. There has been a good policing response, but the situation requires additional resources going into the Metropolitan police, in part to support increased investment in frontline officers but, critically, to support increased investment in detectives, who follow up crime and give a better service to victims. I hope he supports the settlement for that reason.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the proposed increase in the precept in the Merseyside police force area will mean that people in all council tax bands will experience a 13% increase? Jane Kennedy, the police and crime commissioner, says that that will allow only for a stand-still budget on Merseyside. At the same time, we have seen a worrying increase in knife and gun crime, and the needless and tragic loss of so many young lives, yet the Minister has been unprepared to meet the police and crime commissioner and local MPs to discuss it. Will he undertake to meet the commissioner, the chief constable and local MPs to discuss how we can tackle that appalling problem?

[Mr Hurd]

With genuine respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have met Jane on a number of occasions, and once specifically with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who has responsibility for crime and safeguarding, to discuss serious violence.

[Mr Howarth]

We have asked four times and had no answer.

[Mr Hurd]

I am not aware of that. I see Jane quite regularly, as I do the chief. Given the seriousness of the matter, I am more than happy to sit down with Merseyside MPs—I give that undertaking, and was unaware of those unanswered requests. We have an open and regular dialogue with the police leadership.

The settlement helps police and crime commissioners to manage cost pressures—the pension issue was a serious concern—in a way that will allow Jane to go to the people of Merseyside and say clearly that any increase in the local precept will go into local policing. That is one objective of the settlement.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). I agree with him on at least one thing—there is nothing simple or straightforward about what we are confronted with here.

I want to spend the time available to me talking about Brexit and Knowsley. People might say, “Why Knowsley?” Why do I have to talk about Knowsley in connection with Brexit? The reason is that in the 2016 referendum the people of Knowsley voted in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom—52:48—to leave the European Union, so, in a way, it is a microcosm of the rest of the United Kingdom. Why did the people of Knowsley vote in the way they did? When I was out on the street campaigning to remain, three reasons came up continually. The first was immigration; I will say a little more about that in a moment. The second was sovereignty, or taking back control. The third was that they wanted us to control our own finances properly. I want to deal with each of those in turn.

First, on immigration, some of it—not all of it—was xenophobic in nature, with people addressing it as, “We don’t want to be that country. We don’t like multiculturalism” and that kind of thing. People also gave other reasons, one of which was a feeling that immigration was putting too much pressure on public services. In Knowsley, we have the lowest level of immigration in the country, and although we have pressures on public services, immigration has nothing to do with those pressures. But that was one of the reasons they gave.

Another reason people gave—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), as so often, touched on it—was a feeling that those coming from eastern Europe in particular were undercutting wages in some of the industries that operate in my constituency. Whether that is right or wrong, that is what people felt at the time. As it happens, I think we need to have a more intelligent debate about immigration than we have had so far, so that people really understand the nature of it, but we have not had that debate, and we certainly had not had it at that point.

Secondly, I will not labour the point on sovereignty, because it has been made repeatedly by others, but the reality is that we are ceding more control than we are gaining, so the deal does not meet that requirement. Thirdly, on the issue of repatriating the money we spend in Europe and economic control, frankly, all the evidence is that it will go in the opposite direction. The reality is that everything the people in my constituency voted for when they voted to leave is not going to happen with this deal. This deal does not meet the requirements they set, and I think most Members are conscious of that.

Before I conclude, I want to talk about what I know of opinion in my constituency at the moment. Like every other Member of this House, I have had hundreds of people contact me in the last few weeks, and they fall into three distinct categories. The first is people who, like me, voted to remain, and they want us to have a second referendum, so that they can have a go at determining a different outcome. The second category is people who voted to leave, are still convinced of that and are willing for us to come out at any cost, with no deal at all. The third category, which is really interesting, is people—some of them remainers, some of them leavers—who are saying, “We’ve already had a referendum. We should get on with it.” The Prime Minister has been using that mantra over the last few weeks. The problem, given that the deal does not represent any of the things that those people voted for, is that getting on with it means getting on with something that virtually everyone in the House concedes is an unsatisfactory outcome.

I think we would all concede that those who contact MPs to tell them what they think are not necessarily typical of opinion in any given constituency. Nevertheless, that is one signal I have to go by. I got another signal when I went to speak on this issue at the All Saints sixth-form in Kirkby in my constituency six weeks ago. In the middle of it, for some reason, I decided to take a straw poll. Although Kirkby is a traditional white working-class area, the students overwhelmingly voted to remain. They wanted some means by which they could remain in the European Union, and that highlights the generational difficulty we have.

I also attended an event over the summer that I organised with the help of the local chamber of commerce, for local businesses that trade with Europe. From big companies like Jaguar Land Rover, down to a small company that deals in precious metal, they wanted a deal that assured their future trading relationship with the European Union. I do not think this deal provides that.

I am left with the view that this can only be sorted in one of two ways. The first is a general election. That does not seem likely to happen, but it is one way of doing it. The second option is another referendum. I believe that one or both of those, or even a combination of the two, is the only way forward, because there is no majority in the House for anything else.

Police Pension Liabilities

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive intervention. We share a desire to continue down the path we set, and as a result of the action that we have taken, almost every single police force in the country is now recruiting additional officers. We do not want to go backwards. We must solve the pension issue, and we are working closely with our Treasury colleagues to do just that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the pension issue comes at a time that is not without problems that already exist. My constituency has seen an alarming rise in gun and knife crime, and a bus service was withdrawn last week after hooligans threw bricks at buses. The Minister needs to resolve the situation quickly; otherwise we run the risk of losing control of the streets.

[Mr Hurd]

I will resist any such scaremongering on this issue, but I do not need any lectures about the demand and pressures on the police following my conversations with all ranks of police leadership and with Members from both sides of the House. We are all in the same place, and even the Chancellor recognised here at the Dispatch Box the pressures on the police. We are trying to structure the right response to those pressures, and we are doing so from a position of growing economic confidence, which is in stark contrast to what the situation would be if Labour was in power.

Money Laundering

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

When an unexplained wealth order is made, the National Crime Agency or the Serious Fraud Office, for example, goes to the court to apply for it. A judge can give a period of time for the person to respond to the charge that the law enforcement agencies have made. If they cannot, we move to seizure. Usually, at the same time as an unexplained wealth order is applied for, we also apply for a freezing order to make sure that the person does not move the money or the property when the order is made. We believe that it is a very important tool and there are many more in the pipeline. We used it within 14 days of it coming into law on 31 January.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share the concern voiced by some that online platforms are being used for the purposes of money laundering? Will he ensure that the regulatory bodies and agencies concerned in the UK have all the necessary resources and the agility to counter that problem?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some important points. The first is about the development of new technologies, such as platforms and cryptocurrencies, which all present a challenge for law enforcement agencies around the world. The Governor of the Bank of England recently commented on that, and it is something that we will all have to think through. There is no easy answer on some of them.

On the issue of regulation and supervision, we are obviously working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the tax authorities—to make sure that we spot when people move money without paying tax. It is also important to gather evidence from that movement. Of course, this country is bound by a number of directives on money laundering that we follow. We are currently subject to the Financial Action Task Force inspections on how we deal with money laundering. That leads to an independent international report that judges and ranks us. All hon. Members are welcome to comment on that and we will be held to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to reduce dangerous journeys for unaccompanied child refugees with family in the UK.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to reduce dangerous journeys for unaccompanied child refugees with family in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, there are several gateway schemes, including the Dublin regulation and the Dubs scheme. As I have just outlined, our own immigration rules also contain a route that people can use, and I would encourage them to look at that.

[Mr Howarth]

I welcome the Minister’s response, but the generosity and decency of the British people is such that they want the Government to do more. The £50 million raised by the BBC’s Children in Need charity last week is testament to that generosity of spirit. Will the Minister match the welcome rhetoric with deeds that will break the logjam of children waiting to be reunited with their families in the UK?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that that is a good example of the great generosity across this country. We see it not only at events such as Friday night’s, but in the community sponsorship programmes and in communities wanting to do what they can to help some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We should all be proud of what we do as a country and of what the Government are doing to bring over children who need support and help. We are doing that, and our rules do allow for family reunion as well.

Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on a comprehensive analysis of the problems confronting many of our constituents.

I shall confine my remarks to the criminal, dangerous and antisocial use of motorcycles. Many Members of the House have raised concerns about that; indeed, the Prime Minister herself has acknowledged that it is a problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), on the Front Bench, has been campaigning alongside me and others on the issue.

It is a real problem in my constituency. The young people who ride the motorcycles often wear crash helmets, although they are unlicensed, or use some sort of head covering—a balaclava or scarf—to make it very difficult to recognise them. That poses challenges for the police. There is recognition on the part of Merseyside Police, to whom I am indebted for my briefing for this debate, that these scrambler bikes, as they are commonly called, although they are not necessarily scrambler bikes, are used in the pursuit of crime. We have heard examples of their being used in acid attacks and in ram-raids on shops, but more commonly in my constituency they are used to distribute drugs and, in some cases, firearms. Merseyside Police tell us that although there has been a sharp increase, in some parts of the Liverpool city region, in the discharge of firearms, the numbers of firearms have not necessarily gone up. The same firearms are being used repeatedly, and in some cases they are being ferried around by young people connected to so-called drug barons. They are almost like firearms for hire: the young people drive around, and whoever wants to hire a firearm for the day, that is how it is delivered to them.

There is real concern about this matter and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, at the same time as the problem is growing, police numbers have been reduced. On Merseyside, we have 1,000 fewer police officers than we had in 2010, and which creates challenges. This matter is covered by section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to seize vehicles, including motorbikes, if they are used in a “careless and inconsiderate” manner. In most circumstances, a warning is required, but in exceptional circumstances one need not be used. The legislation is suitable for dealing with very low-level antisocial behaviour—for example, people using a scrambler bike in a field or on wasteland who will engage with the police when stopped and spoken to—but not for dealing with riders who are intent on riding along public roads in a dangerous manner and have no intention of stopping for the police. We therefore need to revisit the legislation, and I would like to refer to a couple of case studies that illustrate why that is important.

The first case study involves an incident on Merseyside in 2015 in which police officers came across a scrambler bike rider travelling at excessive speed in the city of Liverpool. Eventually, after a lot of problems, an officer managed to detain the rider of the bike, because he considered that he was a real danger to the public. The rider was arrested and charged with dangerous driving, and was eventually sentenced to six months in prison, but that was not the end of the story. The incident was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and thirteen months later the police officer involved ended up in court, and was acquitted, for the actions that he had taken to detain the young person. Dealing with the matter took 18 months, during which time that police officer was under a lot of pressure and, indeed, the threat of losing his job and his liberty.

I have other case studies, but I realise that we are short of time, so I shall skip them and just say that the Police Federation has concerns about this matter. It believes that the law needs to be clarified so that police officers in the situation described have some kind of exemption from prosecution. Obviously, their need to protect the public should override the civil libertarian concerns about people who are using what are often unlicensed and uninsured vehicles for criminal purposes. I hope that the Minister, who nodded when I made that point, will acknowledge, when she winds up the debate, that that is a problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

It is reassuring that all that work is going on, but at the end of the day it does not alter the fact that, even where powers already exist, if the police do not have the resources—they say that they often do not have the resources—to exercise those powers, the problem cannot be tackled.

[Sarah Newton]

I have carefully listened to the point that the right hon. Gentleman and all other colleagues have made about the capacity of the police to respond effectively to antisocial behaviour. Of course, the Government and I recognise that it is crucial that police have the right resources and capabilities and the powers that they need to keep the public safe. That is why we ensured that in the 2015 spending review the overall funding for the police was protected in real terms.

In addition to that funding, of course, there is the police transformation funding. We have heard today about the way in which the nature of crime is changing and it is important that we invest in new skills and new tools to enable the police to recognise those changes, take them into account and to go after the criminals effectively. There is £175 million in the police transformation funding alone.

Let us look at the west midlands. Following a public consultation, the police and crime commissioner put forward a budget for 2017-18, which was approved by the police and crime panel in early February. That budget is enabling the recruitment of 800 new police officers, 150 more police community support officers and 200 specialist police staff; those are all being recruited as we speak. Across England and Wales, in the last six months, the overall number of police officers has risen, and the number of officers joining is up by 60%, compared with this time last year. So more police officers are being recruited.

Health, Social Care and Security

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and an honour to be re-elected once again to represent the lovely New Forest East constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have announced that there is now a time limit of six minutes, which I think he was aware of, in order to accommodate as many people who want to speak as possible. Dr Lewis, your six minutes start now.

[Dr Lewis]

I have at least benefited from a few extra seconds as a result.

There is plenty to welcome in this Queen’s Speech, from the prioritisation of mental health to the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain, which will give us all a chance to show that our friendship with that great country is as enduring and immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar. I will touch, however, on two other aspects of the Queen’s Speech, and they will not come as a surprise to colleagues who know of my areas of speciality.

The first is the reiteration of the Government’s pledge to continue to meet the NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of national income on defence. I am sorry to say that it is not enough. One of the things that the Select Committee on Defence managed to establish, through a great deal of hard work and original research by its professional and dedicated staff, was a comparison over the decades of what happened to defence with a graph showing something very different for other high-spending subjects. We found that in the early 1960s we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on welfare and defence. Now we spend six times as much on welfare as we do on defence. In the mid-1980s we spent similar sums—about 5% of GDP—on education, health and defence. Now we spend two and a half times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we do on defence. In every year from 1981 until 1987, at the height of east-west confrontation, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence, yet even after the cold war had finished, even as late as the financial year 1995-96, we were spending 3% of GDP on defence—a total that does not include things such as war pensions and Ministry of Defence civil service pensions.