Oral Answers to Questions

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the impact of metal theft. The new provisions include an unlimited fine, and we will look closely at their impact as they come through.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not recognise that the public may be shocked that a cashless scheme might not be cashless under the Home Secretary’s proposals, which exclude mobile collectors? If they are exempt, that will create a huge loophole in the system. Does he not accept that resident householders have access to local recycling centres, local authority kerb-side collection and retail take-back and swap, and the option of going to a reputable dealer? Is the exemption not a giant loophole and an own goal?

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

Metal Theft

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that metal theft is becoming a serious issue for the UK; welcomes the Government’s announcement on introducing a cashless system and higher penalties; is concerned that the comprehensive package of measures which is needed to address this issue is not being introduced at the same time; believes that to effectively stamp out metal theft there needs to be a radical change in how the scrap metal industry is regulated; and calls on the Government to introduce a number of additional measures as a matter of urgency, including a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the present registration scheme, a licence fee to fund the regulation of the licence, greater police powers to close unscrupulous scrap metal dealers in line with alcohol licensing, police authority to search and investigate all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers, use of photo identification and CCTV to identify sellers of scrap metal, and their vehicles, vehicle badging for mobile scrap metal dealers, and magistrates’ powers to add licence restrictions and prevent closed yards from re-opening.

First, may I express my thanks to the hon. Members for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and for Worcester (Mr Walker) for co-sponsoring this topical Back-Bench debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing Members of this House to debate this issue tonight? I also wish to mention my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who first raised this issue back in 2010. I understand that just last night, in the other place, metal theft was once again the subject of much discussion.

Metal theft is at epidemic levels. Industry is being hard hit by daily thefts and the general public are not only horrified at the escalation and cost, but disgusted at the theft of Britain’s heritage; reports of war memorials being desecrated have shocked the nation. We have seen lifeboat stations without communications, and last month Llandough hospital in Wales had to cancel 80 operations because of cable theft. Remote rural broadband services across Britain are too frequently knocked out. The Energy Networks Association claims that there has been a 700% increase in theft from the energy networks between 2009 and 2011. The Association of Chief Police Officers conservatively puts the cost at £770 million. I believe that a lack of accurate reporting—there is no specific crime code—probably means that the true cost is higher, but Deloitte puts the figure more conservatively at between £260 million and £600 million.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is not one of the key factors the disproportionate relationship between the value of the metal being sold and the cost of replacing it? For example, manhole covers are being sold for a few quid but the cost to Sandwell council of replacing them is £400, and it is losing 40 or 50 of them a month. A similar comparison can be made between the price of the cable that is being stolen and the disruption to travel. Should not the penalties reflect that cost rather than the value of the metal?

[Graham Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and many in the House will share his view.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Jones]

I would like to make some progress, if possible.

The British Transport police state that there are eight attacks on the transport system each day, and that is of grave concern. Ecclesiastical Insurance reported that in 2011 there were 2,500 lead thefts from church roofs. Perhaps most shockingly, the War Memorials Trust estimates that one memorial is vandalised every week in the UK, and for only a very small amount of metal. Today’s debate is a reminder of the urgent need to tackle this scourge and of the importance of doing so; with the Olympics around the corner, it reminds us of the threat to essential services. Paul Crowther of the British Transport police described metal theft as

“the second biggest threat to our infrastructure after terrorism”.

Nigel Martin, the head of supply at Wessex Water, has said:

“Any one of these cable thefts can turn into a civil emergency.”

The Government’s response so far has been unclear. My comprehensive Bill was rejected, despite its forensic drafting by the Public Bill Office—I wish to thank the people there. The announcement of a ban on cash trade and the introduction of unlimited fines for those trading in stolen metal are welcome steps. However, the Government’s announcement misses key elements that underpin the success of a cashless payments system. First, a robust licensing system is required to overhaul the inadequate and flawed Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Secondly, and as importantly, we need a UK wide taskforce to gather best practice and to bring together the key partners: the United Kingdom Border Agency; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; the Environment Agency; local government, the National Crime Agency; banking; local police forces; and, importantly, industry. Those bodies need to come together in a positive way to tackle this scourge.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned church roofs. Is he aware that insurance companies now have a £5,000 limit and will pay out only on that, but in most cases that does not get anywhere near covering the cost of the stolen lead?

[Graham Jones]

I am aware of that, and it appears that that figure is falling as a result of the escalation in lead thefts from church roofs. That is of some concern, especially as insurance is very hard to come by for some of the churches that have suffered.

The measures in this motion were agreed by the affected industries and, importantly, by members of the all-party group on combating metal theft. However, the Government’s two announcements somewhat sit in isolation, and that is where the concern lies. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is an unsuitable legislative vehicle, so we need to move beyond it. It appears to be have been commandeered at the 11th hour and, unfortunately, no other measures have been allowed to be added to it. The Bill passed through this House only last November and notably absent were any measures to tackle metal theft. That raises further questions about this House’s ability to scrutinise last-minute amendments from the Lords.

In November, the Chancellor announced a £5 million pilot which has been started in the north-east—Operation Tornado. However, it will not report back until July, when the Olympics begin and Parliament starts its summer recess. I am concerned about that, as the approach being taken all seems a little disjointed, and I appeal to the Minister to bring coherence to the Government’s strategy.

Metal theft is a very particular type of crime. That is because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, its effects are disproportionate to the impact it has on other people; stealing £20-worth of metal can cause £100,000-worth of damage. Such a theft can remove a war memorial or result in the loss of life, and it cannot be calculated in financial terms in some cases. A theft in the Dartford tunnel area caused £29 million-worth of damage and a recent metal theft in Glasgow caused a further £14 million-worth of damage, including the part closure of a hospital.

Metal theft is also a very particular type of crime because the effectiveness of policing it is limited; the nation’s metal estate is so vast that there is not a police solution. The Government must look more intelligently and co-operatively if we are to “design out” the problem. We are talking about a failure of regulation and of joined-up working, not of policing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Graham Jones]

I have only 10 minutes available and I would like to make some progress.

In 2010, only 21 people were proceeded against under the 1964 Act, and only 18 were found guilty and sentenced. Of these 18, 10 received a fine and eight were given a conditional discharge. The average fine was £379, and only once was the maximum of £1,000 used. I welcome the response by the Home Secretary on sentencing and the comments of Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who recently said that the Crown Prosecution Service would be taking a “firm stand” against metal thieves and would spell out the level of public disgust to judges.

Unfortunately, I am never shocked by the scale of criminal activity in the scrap metal industry. Cash is king for one reason and HMRC needs to wake up to that, as the Treasury is losing millions in revenue. A sting article in the Daily Mail last week exposed the size of the problem in the industry, as 40% of the dealers approached accepted metal that the undercover journalist told them was stolen. Shockingly, none of them reported this alleged crime to the police, and this is simply not good enough.

Two previous sting operations by BBC London and The Daily Telegraph have shown that those cases are not isolated. The measures called for in the motion will support honest dealers who play by the rules. Without those changes, the dishonest and the criminal will have a commercial advantage. I welcome the story of a south London scrap metal dealer, Stuart Nebbett, who is donating £21,000 to replace stolen plaques from war memorials in south London.

The industry needs reform. Last night, in the other place, the Minister stated that a robust licensing scheme would be brought in “as soon as possible”, but I should like to know when and how. I do not want to see any drift on this matter or any relaxation of tough regulation. The way to deal effectively with this crime is to choke it off at the point at which it enters the system, before war memorials can be laundered through apparently legitimate metal dealers and before all traceability is lost. Legitimate dealers are being infected through actions at entry-level points in scrap metal trading. The public need a commitment from the Government that they will introduce a full licensing scheme funded by a licence fee. That is the first step towards fully legitimising the scrap metal industry and is a prerequisite to the introduction of cashless payments, as it would provide a robust legal framework with traceability at the heart of the process, particularly by giving magistrates the power to add licensing restrictions.

There is also a need for increased powers for police to enter, search and close the premises of those suspected of dealing in illegally obtained scrap metal. At the moment, they require a warrant to enter premises that are not registered by the local authority. It is important in identifying stolen metal entry points that the Environment Agency waste carrier notices are enforced and that other agencies and, crucially, the public can identify itinerant traders and, at the other end of the scale, illegal containerisation with the introduction of vehicle badging.

The robust measures called for in the motion are one half of the solution, but good practice is the other half and I am concerned that we might turn a blind eye to good practice should we regulate the industry. Together, those two kinds of action will free up scarce resources to deal with displacement of the crime and to allow the agencies involved to shift resources to the hardcore criminals who will seek to divert their criminal activities away from regulated scrap metal dealers.

I conclude by affirming that the House wants to know what the Government are going to do and when they are going to do it. Lord Henley said last night in the other place that

“as soon as possible…by whatever legislative means is appropriate, we will bring forward the further amendments that need to be made, particularly to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 54.]

I welcome those comments. If the Government do have a clear strategy, I hope that the Minister will be able to make that clear and provide a road map and timetable for regulation. At the moment, it appears to the industry and those outside it that this might be policy on the hoof.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am sorry, but I really want to make some particular points. If I have a minute at the end I will give way. Members have been asking all evening for me to answer the points raised, and I intend to do so.

Strong legislation is absolutely vital, but it must be backed up by strong enforcement action from the police and other law enforcement agencies. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers, local police forces and the British Transport police to strengthen law enforcement activity. Recognising the damage that metal theft causes to our economy, the Government have committed £5 million of additional funding to establish a dedicated national metal theft task force. The taskforce will complement and expand existing enforcement activity not only by the police, but by a range of law enforcement agencies.

The message we are sending out is clear: metal thieves will have nowhere to hide. We have recently seen some significant sentences given to metal thieves, which I hope will continue. I welcome the recent announcement by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in which he instructed prosecutors to use every tool at their disposal to take a firm stand to convict metal thieves. I make it clear that we are in no way targeting the legitimate metal recycling industry, which does important work that is good for our economy and good for our environment.

Many Members on both sides of the House asked about a number of measures, and the Government believe that the measures that we have already announced will make a big difference, but we are open to new ideas and are already considering how we can further strengthen our approach to metal theft, including the proposals outlined in the motion.

We are considering, for example, how the existing registration scheme can be strengthened, with a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the current registration scheme, and we agree that the existing scheme under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is outdated and in need of improvement. The Home Office is already seeking to make such changes as soon as parliamentary time allows.

On greater police powers, which Members on both sides have asked for, we are keen to provide the police with sufficient powers, including entry and closure powers covering the scrap metal industry, to tackle metal theft offenders, and we are seeking clarity on whether we can include amendments to police powers of entry as part of wider measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

We want to regularise the position under the 1964 Act, whereby the police have the power to enter yards that are registered under the Act, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, their inability to go into unregistered yards is a real anomaly. In the meantime, the work of the dedicated metal theft task force, along with unlimited fines and the end of cash transactions, will tackle the problem until we can bring all those powers into being.

Any new scheme must support legal operators and promote the green economy, but it must also have the power to tackle scrap metal dealers who wilfully help the stolen metal trade, so we will consider further measures, listen to the outcome of the debate and see whether there is more we can practically do to stop metal theft. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Hyndburn, but I hope that Members appreciate that they did ask for an answer to these questions, and I have been trying to give them one.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I have just a simple and straightforward question. Will Government Front Benchers support the motion tonight?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Government Front Benchers will not oppose the motion tonight, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will support it.

We are strengthening the law, cracking down on rogue scrap dealers and targeting the criminals who supply them. That is the right way to tackle this devastating crime. That is what this Government are doing, and this Government are taking action. Nothing happened during the previous 13 years.

[Graham Jones]

First, I welcome the Minister’s words, because we are beginning to move in the right direction. We still have some outstanding issues, including whether the Government are going to be robust enough, but we have heard everybody’s comments tonight, and we in the plural sense—the public, Members and those in the other place—want to see tough action, so that is a key question for the Government.

Secondly, on the point about timing, Members want to see measures introduced as soon as possible, and one key issue for many Members is the fact that we have the summer recess coming up and the Queen’s speech, so legislation needs to come forward. We also have the Olympic games, and, to cite again the words I mentioned earlier, we are not far from a national catastrophe. Paul Crowther from the British Transport police said that the issue is second only to terrorism, so urgency is key in this issue, and many people both nationally and locally feel that way.

[Robert Flello]

Would it not be extremely embarrassing for this country if the Olympics were disrupted by metal theft?

[Graham Jones]

I say politely to my hon. Friend, “It wouldn’t be very good, would it?” It would not be a good advert if London ground to a halt and the rail network stopped, so it is imperative that we are seen to act.

I am grateful to Members for being here tonight in such numbers in order to express their opinion on the need to act on metal theft. The Government need not just to look at the timetable and to bring forward legislation as soon as they can; they need to go beyond legislation. We need to consider being far more proactive, so I am very grateful for Members’ contributions this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that metal theft is becoming a serious issue for the UK; welcomes the Government’s announcement on introducing a cashless system and higher penalties; is concerned that the comprehensive package of measures which is needed to address this issue is not being introduced at the same time; believes that to effectively stamp out metal theft there needs to be a radical change in how the scrap metal industry is regulated; and calls on the Government to introduce a number of additional measures as a matter of urgency, including a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the present registration scheme, a licence fee to fund the regulation of the licence, greater police powers to close unscrupulous scrap metal dealers in line with alcohol licensing, police authority to search and investigate all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers, use of photo identification and CCTV to identify sellers of scrap metal, and their vehicles, vehicle badging for mobile scrap metal dealers, and magistrates’ powers to add licence restrictions and prevent closed yards from re-opening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we come to the next business, may I say that this clearly was a popular debate and apologise to Members who put in to speak, but were constrained or did not get in at all?

Hillsborough Disaster

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Members often have the privilege of visiting schools, and we are always asked why we wanted to become an MP. I wanted to become one because of nights like tonight, when we have the chance to bring justice and right a real wrong. Another question we are asked is why MPs are called “honourable”. After tonight, I shall always refer people to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—who has been in the Chamber for the past five hours but has just now disappeared. He gave a tremendous speech on a very important subject. One of the points he made was that this could have happened at any football ground in the country. He is right, and I want to refer to some of the things I have seen—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned many such things in his speech earlier.

On Boxing day, it will be 49 years since I first walked into a football ground. Boxing day 1962 was when I saw my first game, and, sadly, it was the last game that Brian Clough played. About 30 minutes into the game, he was injured very badly. Even though that happened 49 years ago, the memory is still burned into my mind, because football has that effect on us; it hooks us in a way no other game in the world does. It becomes an obsession.

For football supporters, things were very different back in those days. We stood in a huge concrete stand that took 21,000 people. It was uncovered, and the day was freezing cold. The pitch had been covered in straw, and the straw had been pulled back. That was probably one reason why Clough’s injury was so severe. There were at least 50,000 people in the ground for what was a second division match. They were united in wanting to see their team do well. Sadly, as has happened far too often, we got beaten 1-0. I have been a Sunderland fan for many years, and that is a common theme.

Such results do not dampen the passion people feel, however. Regardless of whether they support Liverpool, Everton or any other team in the league, it is their team and their town, and they want to support and get behind them. That passion was there no matter how badly we were tret—and some of the grounds were unsanitary or unsafe, and no other sport would have taken place in them.

If that was the situation back in the early ’60s, how did 96 people get killed so much later on, in one of the grounds that was improved for the 1966 World cup? There is absolutely no doubt that the hooliganism of the ’70s and ’80s influenced the mindset of the people in authority in this country. Their attitude towards the fans was much harder back then. The police in particular believed that their job was to control crowds by getting the retaliation in first. In saying that, I do not in any way excuse the crass and disgraceful behaviour of some people—they besmirched the names of good football clubs—but football was not immune to what was happening outside in those days.

The police were strongly politicised in the 1980s. We had seen riots on the streets of Brixton, Toxteth and Tottenham. We had also seen the dispute at Wapping and the miners’ strike, when ordinary working men, many of them football fans, were declared to be “the enemy within”—a phrase that was mentioned earlier in our debate in relation to the people of Liverpool. Crucially, just four years earlier, we had seen the disaster at the Heysel stadium, as a result of which we ended up with fans literally penned in cages. Was that seen as an overreaction at the time? It was not. People said, “Its all they deserve. If they are going to behave like animals, let’s treat them like animals.”

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I do not want to move away from the issue of the day, but I wish to make a point about what led to that penning in. What was done by people such as Ken Bates, who put up electrified fences at Stamford Bridge, led to disasters such as this and it is why every football fan in this country sympathises with this issue today.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because he raises exactly the point I am trying to make. Sadly, it was the Liverpool fans who suffered that day but it could have been any of us, because the authorities took an attitude that said, “These people are out of control. We will treat them like animals.” How did they do that? It was okay to herd people into a clearly overcrowded area. It was okay to keep forcing more and more people into confined spaces, despite their objections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned what happened to him and I experienced a similar event at the Leppings Lane end in Sheffield in 1968. We could not even get near the turnstiles, but the design of the ground funnelled people into an area. So we were pushed up against police horses and they could not move, let alone the crowd. What stays in my mind from that day was a policeman on horseback flailing with his baton, but he could not move—none of us could move. That took place 21 years before Hillsborough, so a catalogue of events led up to what happened on that day in 1989.

Policing Costs (Football Matches)

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is difficult to know how far the footprint goes. People catch trains to football matches, and one sees them at all the stations. That is why I contend that the consequential policing cost is far greater than we think. Whatever the figures, it is clear that it costs more than we recover from the clubs, and my question is: why?

We have all seen the extra police in tube stations and town centres on match days. They are there for one reason: because it is match day. They are doing their job of safeguarding the community, preventing trouble from occurring, and dealing with scuffles and fights between fans. My simple question is: why are the clubs not being billed for those extra policing costs?

In other walks of life there is a principle of, the polluter pays. A constituent, Nigel Clempson, runs a successful shop-fitting company in Rugeley. I am grateful to Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail for highlighting his case in the national press. He said that my constituent

“is the kind of businessman upon whom Britain’s recovery depends.”

His team of craftsmen work seven days a week, mostly at night, refurbishing shops and banks. All the debris that they strip out of the buildings they are refitting is taken back to the firm’s yard at Rawnsley, near Cannock, where it is dumped in a large skip to await recycling and disposal. Because of the nature of the firm’s business, the yard is accessible round the clock, and the skip attracts the attention of local rag and bone men and groups of Travellers who sort through it in search of salvage.

Nigel Clempson has never had a problem with scavengers, who are looking for scrap metal and other materials that they can sell for a few bob, but recently he had a visit from a police officer and an inspector from Cannock council’s environmental health department. The police had seen some Travellers loading scrap from his yard into a transit van, and he was told that he needed a licence to transport industrial waste. He assured them that his company was fully insured and licensed, but was told, “Ah, but the Travellers aren’t.” Nigel was informed by the police that it was his duty to ensure that anyone taking material from his premises had a waste transfer certificate.

We all know that Travellers come and go at all hours, so how was Nigel expected to keep track of everyone, and make sure that they were carrying the correct permits? The police said that that was up to him, but that if any of the material was fly-tipped and traced back to him, he would face a hefty fine. People might ask why the onus should be on Nigel, and not on the Travellers themselves, who probably do not tax their own vehicles, so they are hardly going to bother getting a waste disposal certificate. The principle is that a local businessman from the west midlands has been told that it is his personal responsibility to make sure that a gang of Travellers do not remove stuff from a skip, so he has reluctantly spent £2,000 on a special cage to encase his skip. My question to the Minister is: why are the same police not telling their local premiership football clubs that it is their responsibility to make sure that the local community is safe, that the streets are cleaned, and that the train stations are protected from damage as a result of their businesses?

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and I thank you, Mr Crausby, for chairing it. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s principle, but I would like to hear his thoughts on some of the wider issues. He seems to have drawn a harsh line, although he has tried to address that, and my question is: why just premiership clubs?

A recent English Defence League demonstration in Blackburn on 4 April cost a fortune to police. The hon. Gentleman asked why taxpayers are paying for premiership matches to be policed, but what about the EDL demonstration? What about other demonstrations that cost local taxpayers a fortune? What about large community events that must be policed? Where is the line to be drawn? Will he explain why he is referring only to premiership clubs, and why that is fair?

[Mr Burley]

I am more than happy to do that. I framed my debate narrowly to premiership clubs. In essence, the direct answer is that there are two reasons. First, they are unique in the intensity of policing and number of police required for their entertainment activities, which is very different from the number of police at Glastonbury, an athletics meeting or at Wimbledon. So one reason is the number of police involved and the regularity of matches, and the second is the clubs’ wealth. ACPO figures suggest that if the premiership clubs paid the total cost of policing their matches in the whole country, that would amount to some £15 million a year. I understand that Wayne Rooney is paid £10 million a year, and he is one striker in one club. Clearly, the clubs can afford it.

There seems to be a fundamental inconsistency in our messages to local businessmen and to premiership football clubs. Is that because it is easier to pick on small businesses than on giant football clubs?

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burley]

I must carry on to my conclusion. At the heart of this debate is a disparity between what clubs are legally obliged to pay in policing costs, and what the police estimate those costs to be. That stems from grey areas in current legislation and Home Office guidance. It is not clear to what extent football clubs and other holders of commercial events are liable for policing away from the footprint, and that leads to the disparity between the full cost of policing a match, and what the clubs believe they are liable to pay. There is also an issue of principle. If people like Nigel Clempson are being told by the police that they are responsible for putting cages on skips, why on earth are premiership football clubs not being similarly told that they are responsible for the policing costs incurred by their businesses?

Finally, the reality of the wider economic situation is that the police must make savings of up to 20%. We know that they are finding that a challenge, and officers in many forces are being retired after 30 years, while police community support officers and police staff are being lost. West Midlands police alone must save £125 million over the next four years. Why not provide extra revenue from a source that can afford it? That would help to mitigate the massive cuts being made to deal with the record deficit bequeathed to us by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, but the logic behind that argument is that we should stop holding big public events that might excite emotion or violence, because there will always be a knock-on effect on police costs. We have a police service so that people can go about their normal business, and for many people in this country, attending football matches is just that. I am not sure that it should be regarded as an alien imposition on the wider community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made the ACPO case for full cost recovery, but football clubs play a key role in local communities and do a lot of good work in education and health. I am keen for them to remain in a position that enables them to provide those benefits to the community, and I do not want to tie them up with more red tape and obligations.

This issue will not go away, and it is clear that many people feel strongly about who should pay for policing premier league football. We must make progress on that. I recognise that the disparity between what premier league clubs are required to pay for policing and what police forces estimate the full costs to be could be interpreted as a form of subsidy. I argue, however, that that interpretation is too simplistic. It is important to remember that the provision of special police services extends beyond premier league football clubs to all organisations, both sporting and otherwise, that require such services. That includes non-profit-making local and community-led organisations, which must not be prevented from their activities by prohibitive policing costs.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have little time left. Having such a wide range of parties with an interest in policing makes the situation even more complex. As a result, a solution to the case of premier league football matches cannot be reached overnight. I agree, however, that increasing the clarity and consistency of existing guidance in the light of case law—such as the recent cases of Wigan Athletic and Greater Manchester police—could help to ensure a more reasoned approach to charging for special police services. That would help reduce the prevalence of disputes between event organisers, including premier league football clubs, and police authorities, while maintaining the all-important principle of local discretion.

I reassure my hon. Friend that Home Office Ministers are considering carefully all options to ensure a mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. We are not there yet, but an increasing body of evidence will enable us to get close to a solution that I hope will square the very difficult circle, and allow our successes in policing football over the past few years to continue, so that people can carry on enjoying football just as much.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Reductions in Policing

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman may also be interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who said:

“I don’t think it’s possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction.”

It is being assumed that a reduced number of police officers means a reduced service. I would argue, as have chief constables across the land, including my own, that that is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman might suggest. In Dyfed Powys, there will be a different sort of policing as a consequence of these changes—it will look different, as I said last week. There will be a greater reliance on technology, and things will not be quite as they were before. However, it is irresponsible to suggest that the public are somehow endangered as a result, and that makes the motion something that the Opposition should be rather ashamed of.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says that police numbers and crime are not linked. Is he therefore suggesting that if crime does not go up we should carry on cutting police numbers?

[Simon Hart]

I fully follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The comment I made is attributed to a Member from his own party, and a similar comment was made by the former Home Secretary, so perhaps he will take it up with them when he has the opportunity.

I commend the approach of the Dyfed Powys force in its tackling of the challenges ahead. It had a simple strategy, which was to list its challenges as the things that it must do, the things that it could do, and the things that it must stop doing. Hon. Members may be interested to discover, as I was, that the last of those three lists is longer than Labour Members may care to consider. One such example was the victims of crime leaflet, a new Labour gimmick if ever there was one, which was abandoned by the Dyfed Powys police force as being a waste of officers’ time and the public’s time, and—guess what?—public satisfaction with the force went up at the same time as that measure was disposed of. That illustrates what I think, what my voters think, and what the police officers of Dyfed Powys think—that we would much rather have our police officers engaged in proper crime prevention and detection than in subsequently taking part in some sort of PR exercise to suit a political agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government are facing up to reality. The most challenging financial circumstances that this country has faced since the second world war have made me acknowledge that the quality of policing cannot simply be about the number of police; it must also be about how well they are deployed. Government Members have always been clear that police forces can make savings, while protecting front-line services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.

There may be no agreement on that between the Government and the Opposition, but at least there is agreement on police budgets. Let us be clear: the Labour party admits that it would be cutting police funding, that it could not guarantee police numbers, and that it could not guarantee that police staff would not be lost. That is not only because of the cuts to police funding that it had proposed, but because, irrespective of the plethora of targets that operated when it was in power, it still could not dictate to chief constables exactly whom they did or did not employ.

At the moment, the police are crippled by bureaucracy and spend more time on paperwork than on patrol. That frustrates the police, who want to do their job, and the public, who want to see more police on the streets. The coalition Government are scrapping unnecessary bureaucracy to save police time. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos both said that we would reduce time-wasting bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are helping the police to make savings, and to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.

[Graham Jones]

Would the hon. Gentleman not add cutting crime to that list? He has listed bureaucracy, but surely the purpose of the police is to cut crime. Will that be in his speech at some point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The Government speak of reform of the police force: of front-line services and of back-office management. However, “reform” is a euphemism that the Government use for the most drastic cuts to one of our most vital public services.

Actions speak louder than words, and the public will judge the Government on their actions and their decision to cut the police budget by 20%. The Government speak of reform, but the reality is deep and damaging cuts, which will drastically affect the front line of our police force.

We should not underestimate the scale of the cuts. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed by 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has put a figure on how the Government’s 20% cut is likely to translate into the number of officers on the street. It estimates that 28,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. Of those, 12,000 will be police officers and 16,000 will be so-called civilian staff. That represents a fall of around 12% in overall staff numbers, with 8% of officers losing their jobs.

The Government’s Winsor review states that the taxpayer will save £485 million over three years as a result of those cuts, but at what cost? Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that more than two thirds of all police force staff in England and Wales are employed in front-line roles, but that not all are necessarily visible. It stated that the front line is

“not just what you notice, but it’s also what you rely on.”

We must not make a clinical distinction between front-line and back-office policing. That is too crude. We must not confuse visibility with deployment.

HMIC found that 95% of police officers are either on the front line or working in important middle-office roles in—for example, intelligence gathering or operation planning. Even if the Government’s claim that cuts of 20% would affect only back-office roles were true, those middle and back-office roles are not simply disposable assets. Cuts to middle and back-office roles will inevitably have an effect on the ability of those on the front line to do their jobs.

The Prime Minister said:

“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]

I would like to echo the words of Steve Finnigan, our chief constable. He said that preventing cuts from hitting the front line would prove challenging. He went further, saying that it would be impossible to protect the front line. He was asked this week whether the Government’s cuts mean that he will have to reduce front-line policing and he replied, “I absolutely am.” Chief Constable Finnigan is ACPO’s lead officer on performance management. Does the Home Secretary think that he is wrong? Does she think that Chief Constable Finnigan of ACPO and Lancashire police is not managing his force correctly?

The point is simple, and we are hearing it from forces throughout the country. We simply cannot make cuts of 20% without hitting front-line services. Our police force is one of our most vital public services. Those officers do some of the hardest jobs in the most demanding circumstances and the Government have wholly underestimated their commitment and dedication.

The Government’s so-called reforms will inevitably have an impact on the police service for years to come. The Government promised that there would be no centrally determined job losses—I suppose that that is technically true. Instead, the Government are responsible for the heavy front-loaded cuts, leaving the inevitable job losses in the hands of local authorities and the police.

The priority must be to protect the visibility and availability of police forces in our local communities. However, my constituents are far from optimistic about the so-called reforms. Lancashire Police Federation has said that, in the light of cuts, the force will be hit doubly with job losses and pay cuts, about which we have already heard.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Jones]

I would like to finish, please. Plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak.

John O’Reilly, chairman of Lancashire Police Federation, said:

“Lancashire is a top performing force because of its workforce.”

John goes on to say that

“if the Government keep bashing us, all they are doing is opening up the door for criminals to make life more difficult.”

Figures put to the Lancashire police authority suggest a drastic reduction in the number of officers, which would put Lancashire’s officer strength at its lowest since 2003. In the period since 2003, Lancashire has experienced the greatest fall in crime, and I would not like to go back to 2003 crime levels. However, the cuts will result in an eight-year low in the number of police officers on Lancashire’s streets.

Everyone supports sensible reform, but the Government are hitting our police forces hard, and it will be to the detriment of our local communities. My constituents are concerned that cuts to our already stretched police force will be an open invitation for criminals to commit more crime. Do the Government really think that crime levels will not rise with the police force stretched, understaffed and under-resourced? Do they honestly think that antisocial behaviour will not increase, and that the safety in our streets will not be put into question as a result of there being fewer officers on the beat?

Two thirds of the British public share those concerns and, to date, the Government have done nothing to put those concerns to rest. People are clearly concerned that reduced police funding will have detrimental effects, and at the same time, the Government are prepared to spend £40 million or thereabouts on electing police commissioners.

Furthermore, there has been a two-year delay on the decision on whether police community support officers will continue. My constituents are worried not only about police cuts, but about the Home Office budgets that affect PCSOs. This is not just a numbers game. The Government seem happy to cut our police force by a fifth, but have they paid any thought to the experience and expertise of the PCSOs who will be lost as a result of those cuts?

The Home Secretary must realise that she cannot make drastic cuts of 20% to the police budget without losing some of our most experienced and dedicated officers from the front line. The Government must think again on the scale and pace of the cuts. They are going too far, too fast.

Policing in the 21st Century

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that prospect. One of the purposes of directly elected commissioners is to be responsive to local needs. Of course it will be necessary to ensure that the collaboration between police forces that I referred to earlier can be undertaken when necessary, and that will also involve ensuring that national policing issues are addressed properly. However, it is not the Home Secretary who should determine what happens in regard to local policing—which is what happened under the Labour Government—but the directly elected commissioners.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The cost of elections in Lancashire is expected to be at least £1 million. Given that the Home Secretary has just said that there is no money, can she tell us whether they will be paid for by the Treasury or by Lancashire taxpayers?

[Mrs May]

As I said earlier, we will release figures for the costs in due course.

The hon. Gentleman claims that I said that there was no money. In fact, it was the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said that.