Knife Crime

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

May I remind Members that they should address each other in the third person? Anybody who says “you” is talking to me, and I do not think that was what was intended.

Leaving the EU: Justice System

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to all Members who participated in the debate. These are important issues, which I hope we have been able to raise and stress their urgency to Government. I am grateful to the Minister for her response, which was as comprehensive and elegantly put as ever. I appreciate that she is well seized of these issues. It is important that we continue to have such debates to keep them to the fore.

[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]

I am sure we all want the Prime Minister to succeed in her objectives, and for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and her colleagues to be able to assist the Prime Minister in achieving them. That will happen only if we continually make the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) rightly said, it may sometimes be seen as a niche topic, but it is fundamental. Without legal certainty, no international commercial arrangements can work. Without legal certainty, no form of justice or security co-operation can ultimately be underpinned. It is not a peripheral matter, which is why a separate track has been suggested to give it the prominence it needs.

I appreciate the point made about the same-state transition secured by the Prime Minister. That period is important. I accept that that gives certainty, but it takes us only up to the end of 2020 and, to give just one example, large-scale commercial litigation often takes more than two years, as the Minister will well know. It is therefore not a long period in those terms. We must bear that in mind—that is why it is so urgent.

I am delighted to see you in the Chair for the end of the debate, Sir Graham. I am sorry that you missed the advocacy fest that went before. I am grateful to all Members for their participation and I am sure we will seek to return to this matter.

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I will look forward to reading the proceedings in Hansard.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Ninth Report of the Justice Committee, Session 2016-17, Implications of Brexit for the justice system, HC 750, and the Government response, HC 651.

Proposed Prison: Port Talbot

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I should make it clear that the rules of procedure do not allow for Opposition spokespeople to participate in half-hour debates—they are exactly the same as the rules that apply to Adjournment debates in the main Chamber.

[Mr Gyimah]

Thank you, Mr Brady—as ever, you are hot on procedure.

A modern prison at Port Talbot will support the rehabilitative culture that is essential to making communities safer. A fit-for-purpose establishment will ensure that families can visit inmates in a relaxed atmosphere, which is particularly important for children. We will ensure, as far as possible, that local labour is sought from Port Talbot and the surrounding area and that local businesses benefit. As a guide, in the design and build of HMP Berwyn, around £83 million was spent with small and medium-sized enterprises in addition to the £38.2 million that was spent on local businesses. The construction of HMP Berwyn provided jobs for unemployed people, apprenticeships and more than 2,000 days of educational work experience for local young people.

Based on the success of HMP Berwyn, where we estimate that up to 1,000 jobs will be created, the new prison at Port Talbot could generate up to 500 jobs and contribute £11 million a year to the regional economy. Some 66% of HMP Berwyn’s staff came from the local area.

Police Procurement (Motor Vehicles)

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am also grateful for the clear and compelling case made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). He explained the circumstances in which this matter has been raised.

The British manufacturing sector includes 11 of the world’s leading global vehicle and engine manufacturers: Aston Martin, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Jaguar Land Rover, Lotus, MG, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen. Several of those manufacturers are in close proximity to my constituency. The Vauxhall Motors plant in my constituency employs several thousand people locally and many more elsewhere in the supply chain. Motor vehicle manufacturing is a key part of the local economy, as it has been for more than half a century.

We recognise that police budgets are under pressure as a result of Government decisions. Central funding to police forces has fallen by £2.3 billion in real terms since 2010—a 25% reduction in five years—so the challenges faced by the police and crime commissioners and chief constables making such decisions are real. The need to ensure value for money for the taxpayer is greater than it has ever been.

As correctly highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the concept of a procurement consortium is good, because the combined purchasing power of many police authorities can deliver significant savings. I have seen many examples in local government of how that has worked to the benefit of the taxpayer. That power should be utilised to provide wider benefits. When looking for value for money on an issue such as vehicle procurement, it is important that we take a wider, more holistic approach than simply looking at individual unit cost. We need to look at the value, not just the price. That encompasses a range of issues, including fuel economy, servicing, maintenance cost, resale value, fitness for purpose and, most importantly, social value.

I share the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester about having a narrow, short-term approach to procurement, which could end up costing us much more by providing poor value for money. That is particularly true when we look at social value, which seems to have been completely disregarded in this case. As my hon. Friend said, a cursory look at police fleets in other countries shows that we stand almost alone in failing to recognise the importance of social value as part of the procurement process.

In France, the police use Citroens, Renaults and Peugeots, produced in French factories. In Germany, they use Mercedes, BMWs and Volkswagens. In Spain, they use SEATs. In Sweden, they use SAABs and Volvos. In Italy, they have Alfa Romeos, Fiats and a few Lamborghinis—I am not quite sure what value those bring. All those countries are governed by the same directive as we are, yet they are all able to procure in a way that supports their own industries. I ask myself why police officers in Cheshire are using vehicles made thousands of miles away rather than those made down the road at the local Vauxhall factory.

We should pay tribute to the success of Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port in recent years. In the face of stiff competition from other General Motor plants across Europe, it has consistently seen off threats to its existence. Management and trade unions have worked together to show that British industry can be competitive and adaptable. Just this week, the plant is looking to recruit more than 50 young people in new roles as it prepares for the launch of the latest model of the Astra.

The continued revival of the UK car industry through initiatives such as the Automotive Council leaves us with the conundrum that one of our most dynamic and successful industries has been leading the way in our bid to increase exports but appears unable to compete with foreign manufacturers on its own patch. We should be proud of the success of Vauxhall and other British manufacturers, but we should not be complacent about the challenges they face. We should take every opportunity to bolster that success.

We seem to be procuring more skilfully in other parts of the public sector. I note, from a response to a written question I tabled recently, that the Government car service has shown improvement in that area. From 2011 to 2014, 80% of all vehicles purchased by the Government car service were manufactured in the United Kingdom. Clearly, I would like that figure to be 100%, but it is a lot better than the 0% for policing.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester in urging the Minister to get the police and crime commissioners together to find a way to support British business. Do we really want to make ourselves the laughing stock of Europe on this subject? Do we really want to miss this opportunity to secure more jobs and investment in our car industry? I understand that procurement processes have to be legally robust, but a comparison with other European countries shows we are missing a trick somewhere. I hope a way can be found to procure in a way that delivers value for money for the taxpayer and boosts our economic performance.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

We now come to the first of the Front-Bench winding-up speeches, after which Mr Matheson will have the opportunity to make a short reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. The Chairman of the Select Committee did not stand earlier, but given that he clearly would like to speak and that we have time, I call Mr Vaz.

Crime Reduction Policies

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

Sentencing has to be appropriate. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a need to ensure the safety of the public. That is what indeterminate sentences for public protection were designed to do. In some respects they worked, but unfortunately in others they did not work. It is a continuing problem for all Governments, and it is the No.1 priority; that has to be where we start.

As for less serious offences, it is the job of the Government to set sentencing policy, but it is the job of the courts to ensure that in each individual case sentencing is appropriate. Regarding prison numbers, the problem that we have had over the last four years is not so much the number of people in prison as the fact that prison closures, including the closures of successful prisons that were achieving rehabilitation, have been driven by a financial agenda.

That was done by a Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter, so none of us can entirely wash our hands of responsibility. However, the objective—I think it will be shared by all of us—must be to bring down offending rates and to increase rehabilitation. That is achieved through a combination of what happens in prisons and what happens outside, but the lesson from the Select Committee’s report is that neither is working at the moment, because of the short-term solutions and, particularly in the last year, the cuts in the number of prison staff, some of whom are now being re-recruited.

Whatever the Government’s genuine intention, and I am sure that Ministers share our genuine intention to increase rehabilitation and decrease reoffending, they must have known that, after the cuts they made in October 2013 to prison resources, that was simply impossible to achieve.

Finally, I will say a few words about courts. There is a section in the report on the Courts Service, and there has been an interesting response from the Magistrates’ Association. The Minister was unable to attend a meeting of the all-party group on the magistracy yesterday due to other commitments, but we had an interesting discussion, although he would have been no more cheered by it than by what he has heard today about the Prison Service and the probation service.

Increasingly, the Courts Service is not functioning, and that is partly due to a lack of staff, ranging from ushers, who ensure the smooth running of the courts day to day, to justices’ clerks, who supervise the entire court system. Furthermore, up to one in five defendants in magistrates courts are not represented, because of cuts in legal aid, and more such cuts are planned.

However, the issue that concerned the magistrates most was what they regarded as the Government’s lack of respect. We have seen that in the cuts in training, in the attempts to cut remuneration and, most of all, in the issue of increasing responsibility, with magistrates having to take on serious amounts of work without, effectively, being allowed to run their own courts.

I was very interested in the section in the report on problem-solving courts. In terms of the ability of magistrates—not just district judges, but lay magistrates—to be involved in, and take charge of, that process, one observation the magistrates make is that there is not even a magistrates representative on HM Courts and Tribunals Service, despite the fact that they are its largest customer.

Leaving aside the financial constraints, there is a need to ensure that we use the skills that are there in the court system, and particularly those of magistrates, who give their time for nothing, who have a huge reservoir of expertise and who are hugely committed to all the principles the report deals with in terms of improving the criminal justice system. Increasingly, however, they are simply used as a convenient tool to get through the substantive work load.

We take the report seriously, and we applaud the Committee’s work in scrutinising the court, probation and prison reforms. On page 39 of the report the Committee expresses the concern—we have heard it again today—that, when choosing their language, Ministers should bear in mind the

“gulf between hard line rhetoric and the practical policies”.

I cannot imagine who the Committee had in mind—not the Minister here today, who is always very emollient. Notwithstanding the fact that we are approaching a general election, if those involved took a slightly less bombastic, heated approach and had a slightly more measured discussion of the key issues, as evidenced in the Report—I use the word “evidenced” advisedly—that would not only improve the level of debate, but increase the extent to which we achieve the aims we all share.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

It may assist Members if I explain that, due to earlier uncertainty about the time the debate was expected to begin, I propose to call the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington before we move to the Minister’s response.

Mental Health (Police Procedures)

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to move to the winding-up speeches at about 25 minutes to 3. I am not putting a time limit on speeches, but I am flagging that up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate all the previous speakers in this debate, and start by declaring an interest: I am married to a full-time consultant psychiatrist who chairs the Westminster parliamentary liaison committee on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Perhaps more relevantly to today’s debate, I should point out that I have been in a police cell in the middle of the night. I hasten to add that it was in a medical capacity, but I congratulate the Secretary of State for Health on advocating work experience for MPs. I would advocate more MPs spending a night in the cells. If they did, they would realise that that is absolutely the last place someone should be if they are acutely distressed by a mental illness.

That is particularly the case for an acutely distressed 12-year-old. Can we imagine a situation in which a 12-year-old child with a broken leg would be taken to a casualty department because there was no specialist orthopaedic surgeon or facility to assess them? That would be utterly unthinkable, yet in Devon and Cornwall alone, on three occasions since the start of this year 12 and 13-year-olds who have been acutely distressed with mental health issues have been held in police cells. That is utterly unacceptable for anyone, but it is particularly unacceptable that on 25 occasions—I would point out to the Minister that this is in Devon and Cornwall alone—children of 17 or under have been in that situation.

If we look at the situation for adults, we see that, shockingly, there have been 674 occasions on which people have been assessed in cells. As we have heard, the average time detained in that situation is 10 hours. On only 277 occasions have those assessments taken place in an appropriate place of safety. Devon and Cornwall is second behind Sussex in that terrible league of shame.

The situation is not the police’s fault. I want to stress that, and I pay tribute to the members of the police alongside whom I have worked in the past, as a forensic medical examiner, for their professionalism. Many police officers have sent me really heartfelt e-mails describing the difficulties they face. The situation is putting huge pressure on the police. It is a totally inappropriate use of resources. As Lord Adebowale has pointed out, it represents very poor inter-agency working, but there is no financial incentive for the NHS to change because the burden of resourcing falls on the police services.

The situation is totally unacceptable on any clinical level. I am disappointed that there is no Health Minister sitting alongside the Minister today, because ultimately the situation requires a total refocusing of services. If we look at the statistics, we see that 82% of those who are detained under section 136 do not go on to compulsory admission to hospital. That highlights the point that many of these situations could be avoided in the first place.

I am sorry to say that some general practitioners will not see patients unless they have registered. Someone who is acutely distressed and has paranoia as a result of mental illness might not recognise that they are unwell and therefore might not register or go to see a doctor. Consultant psychiatrists might refuse to see a patient without a GP referral. Those are all hurdles in the system. Time and again, carers may be desperate to access help for people who are really unwell, but they must fall off the cliff and become acutely unwell in a public place before the police can step in with a section 136 order that could have been avoided.

I thoroughly welcome the pilot project using triage, but street triage should not be necessary because we should pick up such situations much earlier. I would like volunteers who work with the homeless, for example, and who may be aware that someone is slipping into a distressed state, to be able to refer them directly to psychiatric services and bypass primary care. Of course, I would like all primary care doctors to ensure that they deliver the right care at the right time to all their patients, as the good ones do, and directly and actively seek out people who are homeless and vulnerable but who may not come forward to seek help.

Much of the problem is about funding—it would be wrong not to make that clear. The funding of units where people can be seen in an appropriate place of safety is crucial. It is no surprise that the local authorities that have most use of police cells are often in rural areas, where there are additional geographical challenges in providing appropriate places of safety. But if parity of esteem is to have more than just a hollow ring to it, we must ensure that within the NHS cake there is fair distribution of funding for mental health, and we must recognise in funding formulae that rural areas sometimes face extreme challenges. Sparsity must be recognised in funding if there is to be fairness.

Another problem is that mental health beds are running “too hot”. The CQC has said that in 50% of areas bed occupancy is 90%, and in 15% of areas it is 100%. That causes delays throughout the system. Ultimately, there is a problem not just with appropriate places of safety, but beyond that with having beds available when people need admission. On four occasions in Devon and Cornwall, the process of assessment has taken so long that a bed that was provisionally booked was taken by the time the assessment had been made. All those causes of delays in the system must be addressed: the availability of suitably qualified section 12 approved doctors; the availability of psychiatric beds; and, crucially, the availability of appropriate places of safety.

Will the Minister examine the effect on children when medical facilities are not suitable? There may be secure children’s homes— my preference, of course, would be to have a medical facility available, but I can say from personal experience that anything is better than a police cell. Police cells in the middle of the night are desperately frightening places. They are often full of people who are drunk and shouting. It is unthinkable that a child should be in that environment in a police cell. I hope that the Minister will say that if by next year children as young as 12 are still being put in police cells, Parliament will legislate to abolish that.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping to time so well. If the shadow Minister and the Minister take no more than 12 minutes each, there will be a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who opened the debate, to wind up.

Policing (West Midlands)

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. Four or five Back-Bench Members want to contribute and we have about 50 minutes. If everybody is reasonably brief, we should get everybody in.