Regulation

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Philip Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulations sponsored by her Department have been (a) introduced since 18 November 2010 and (b) revoked since 2 February 2011.

[Official Report, 7 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 878-79W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 7 March 2011.

The answer contained two typographical errors: in the first table the transposition of the words ‘Accession (Immigration’ and an incorrect S.I. number, and in the second table the omission of a reference to the revoked regulation 3 of S.I. 2009/3136.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Herbert]

The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations have been made by the Department on or after 18 November 2010.

[Nick Herbert]

The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations have been made by the Department on or after 18 November 2010:

Child Slavery

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

First, I should explain that I am responding to the debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, who is in Rome today. He apologises for not being able to be here, but I should emphasise that he is on ministerial business. I am pleased to be responding to this interesting and important debate, in which I am happy to be engaging as Minister for Policing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on such an important subject: child slavery. Tackling the trafficking of children into the UK is a key element of the Government’s work to tackle child slavery in the UK. Children are brought to the UK to be exploited in domestic servitude or for labour, or to be used for sexual exploitation. The Government view human trafficking as an abhorrent crime. People are treated as mere commodities, exploited and traded for profit.

We have always stated very clearly our commitment to tackling the issue. The overall aim is to make the UK a hostile environment for trafficking and to identify and protect victims wherever possible. Children are included because they are, of course, the most vulnerable among those victims trafficked from various countries. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done to raise the matter, and the contributions made by hon. Members from all parties. I agree that there is a large measure of consensus on the issue. I shall try to respond to all three of the key issues that the hon. Gentleman raised: forced marriage, the trafficking of children and sexual exploitation, and forced labour.

The UK leads the world in tackling forced marriage and places great emphasis on tackling early child marriage. It is an appalling and indefensible practice and is recognised in the UK as a form of violence against women and men, domestic child abuse and a serious abuse of human rights. There is no culture in which forced marriage should be acceptable. Victims can suffer physical, psychological, emotional, financial and sexual abuse, including being held unlawfully captive and being assaulted and repeatedly raped.

The Government have stepped up their efforts to tackle forced marriage in a range of ways: by strengthening the legislation and providing statutory guidance, practice guidelines and online training for professionals; by raising awareness and understanding of the issues, including among children and young people; and by providing effective one-stop support to individuals through the Forced Marriage Unit, which is a joint initiative between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office.

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 came into force on 25 November 2008, and offers civil remedies to protect victims or potential victims of forced marriages. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the question of whether forced marriage should be made a crime, which he raised as a potential solution. A national consultation was carried out in 2005 on whether to introduce a specific criminal offence for forced marriage. The majority of respondents felt that the disadvantages of new legislation outweighed the advantages. Many worried that criminalising forced marriage would force the issue underground. Victims of forced marriage can be unwilling to take action against their parents and many respondents felt that the legislation would not be used. Those at risk of forced marriage, or already in a forced marriage, can seek protection through the civil remedies in the form of a forced marriage protection order. Some 271 such orders have been taken out since 2008. The Government said that we would look at the legislation if it was not working, but those figures suggest that the civil remedies are working. Of course, we should keep such matters under review and we will consider any further representations that hon. Members make on the issue, but I hope that that is a reasonable answer to the hon. Gentleman’s particular concern on the issue of forced marriage.

On the issue of child trafficking, on 14 October, during the debate on anti-slavery day, the Minister for Immigration announced the Government’s intention to produce a new strategy on combating human trafficking. The strategy reiterates the Government’s intention to take a comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, both by combating traffickers and by looking after victims. There is a lot of extremely valuable work already taking place and there is a strong foundation to build on. The strategy will maintain the focus on supporting victims, while signalling a greater emphasis on tackling the root problem through more targeted activity in source countries, smarter multi-agency working at the border and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. We are consulting with NGOs to ensure that their views on the strategy are heard and taken into account. We will certainly take into account the ECPAT report on child trafficking, to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred. The strategy will be published in spring and will build on the measures already in place.

Concerns were raised about the EU directive on human trafficking by my hon. Friends the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on the Opposition Front Bench. I will not dwell on that because much has been said already, but I will restate the Government’s position. The draft directive contains no operational co-operation measures from which the UK would benefit. It will help to improve the way other EU states combat trafficking, but it will make very little difference to how the UK fights trafficking. Opting in would also require us to make mandatory provisions that are currently discretionary in UK law. Such a step would reduce, in the Government’s view, the scope for professional discretion and flexibility and might divert resources that are already scarce.

If we conclude later that the directive would help us in the fight against human trafficking, we could opt in. However, by not opting in now, but reviewing our position when the directive is adopted, we can choose to benefit from being part of a directive that is helpful, and avoid being bound by measures that we judge are against our interests. However, I would not want the fact that we believe that it would not be helpful to opt in to the EU directive—indeed, that it may be unhelpful in some respects—to colour the absolute determination that the Government have to act on the issue.

The Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings came into force in the UK on 1 April 2009. To aid in identification and referral, the national referral mechanism was established as part of the ratification of the convention on 1 April 2009. The NRM is a multi-agency framework that allows us systematically to identify trafficking victims and to refer them to support where necessary.

In addition to victim care and work at the border, the Government have always been clear that we remain firmly committed to instituting a strong enforcement response against those who seek to trade in human beings. It is for that reason that we introduced dedicated anti-trafficking legislation through the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I say “we”—I think that must refer to the previous Government, although I think there was broad agreement on those provisions. While the Government are committed to apprehending and charging those who commit this crime, we are also keen to ensure that victims, who are used by them for profit, are appropriately safeguarded. Our response must be international. Most victims of the crime are foreign nationals and there is an obvious need, therefore, to tackle the issue at source.

Hon. Members asked about the particular contribution of the Department for International Development. We have worked with DFID, the Foreign Office and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to support a number of initiatives that aim to tackle trafficking at the country of origin. DFID plays a key role in preventing trafficking at source as part of its work in combating poverty and social injustice through long-term development programmes. Additionally, DFID has supported programmes that are specifically focused on preventing child trafficking in such countries as Bangladesh and Uganda.

I would like to mention SOCA and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, as the status of both was raised by hon. Members. Both do valuable work in this area. SOCA has increased engagement through its global network of liaison officers in 40 countries. We intend to build on the work of SOCA by creating the national crime agency and maintaining the fight against serious and organised crime, of which that is an important component. Similarly, in relation to the important work of CEOP, to which I pay tribute, I reassure hon. Members that it is already a discrete part of SOCA. Should CEOP become a part of the successor body to SOCA, the national crime agency, it will remain a discrete part of the national crime agency. We are absolutely determined that CEOP should continue to be supported externally in the way that it currently is, and continue its valuable work. Nothing we will do will threaten the work of CEOP in any respect.

[Diana Johnson]

Has it not yet been decided whether CEOP will go into that new structure? Is that still to be debated?

[Nick Herbert]

We will announce a strategy in relation to serious organised crime in due course and are carefully considering those matters.

On the issue of funding, which was raised by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is certainly the case that many agencies, including the police, are being required to save money. That must not deter them from their core business of providing front-line services. These are very serious crimes. Agencies and forces must remain focused on those crimes while they seek savings in other areas.

Finally, I would like to respond to the issue of child labour, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are committed to the elimination of child labour and are working towards long-lasting changes to tackle the underlying poverty that is the root cause of that problem. Children the world over must be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential, as expressed in the UN convention on the rights of the child and other international and regional instruments. All children have the right to an education and should not have to work to survive. Entering the labour force too early significantly limits young people’s opportunities over their lifetime and helps to trap families in poverty from one generation to the next. We are working through DFID. In addition, our commitment to the education millennium development goals of universal primary completion and gender parity at all levels of education, is evidenced by DFID’s work in tackling poor working conditions in developing countries.

I hope that it is clear from my response to this interesting and important debate that there is a concerted effort taking place in this country and abroad, through a number of Government Departments and agencies, to heighten awareness of this issue and to ensure that assistance is given, where appropriate, to our overseas partners. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this very important debate. The Government are committed to tackling this horrendous practice and, whether it is referred to as slavery or trafficking, it is clear that that terrible crime must be combated and child victims safeguarded.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

8. How many prisoners with convictions for violent offences were released under the early release scheme between 2007 and 2010.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Between 29 June 2007 and 9 April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released under the end of custody licence scheme. Of those, 16,335 were violent offenders. The scheme finished last year with the last release on 9 April.

[Mark Menzies]

Does the Minister agree that the consequences of the previous Government failing to get a grip on reoffending were that our prisons reached bursting point until the then Justice Secretary had to release prisoners early, thus putting the public at risk?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. By failing to plan properly for the necessary prison accommodation, the previous Government were forced to resort to the end of custody licence scheme. More than 1,600 of those 80,000 prisoners released committed further offences while on the scheme, including very serious offences. One of those offences was murder.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

How confident are the Government that fast-tracking the release of prisoners with sentences of imprisonment for public protection—IPP prisoners—will not put the public at increased risk of serious crime?

[Nick Herbert]

We will take no risks in this respect. All prisoners who have to be released under the IPP scheme will be properly risk assessed. I repeat that the problem with the previous Government’s approach was that these prisoners were released automatically simply because the previous Government had run out of space. However, that scheme was cynically brought to an end just before the last election.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Of the 16,300 or so prisoners whom the Minister mentioned, how many were failed asylum applicants who were not deported?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that I do not have those figures available for my hon. Friend. However, there is a separate issue about the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails, and it remains the Government’s policy to seek to remove them on release as soon as possible.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that on four occasions—in 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1996—the previous Conservative Government released prisoners earlier and with far fewer safeguards? Let me also ask him about the early release of prisoners convicted of violent offences. He mentioned that those serving an IPP sentence will be released early. Exactly how many of the 6,000 prisoners currently serving an IPP sentence will be released early, and what criteria will be used?

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that none will be released early and all will continue to be risk-assessed.

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me ask the Minister to answer this question accurately then. Can he confirm that, as a direct consequence of the cuts that his Department has accepted from the Treasury, there are now fewer programmes for those on an IPP sentence, which means a longer delay before they go on a programme? Can he also confirm that the consequence of the cuts in front-line probation and prison officers will be less rehabilitation while in prison, and that another consequence of the cuts that he has accepted will be cuts to the Parole Board, which will mean a double whammy of more prisoners being released prematurely and less rehabilitation in prison?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman has to get his attack right. One moment he seemed to be saying that we were about to release too many IPP prisoners; now he seems to be saying that we will release too few. Which is it? The fact is that there has been a growth in the number of IPP prisoners. Everybody accepts that IPP sentences have become de facto life sentences and that we have to address that, but there will continue to be a proper risk-assessment of any prisoner released from an indeterminate public protection sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

10. With which third sector organisations he plans to work to deliver his rehabilitation revolution policy.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The voluntary sector has a critical role to play in delivering the Government’s rehabilitation revolution. We will open up the market to enable a greater number of independent providers, including from the voluntary and social enterprise sectors, to contribute towards reducing crime and reoffending. We have consulted widely with the sector to develop the proposals in our Green Paper.

[Fiona Bruce]

Excellent work is being done by local voluntary organisations, such as the Message Trust in Manchester, to help ex-prisoners stay away from reoffending. What can the Minister do to ensure that smaller charities are not excluded by large corporations bidding for payment-by-results schemes?

[Nick Herbert]

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we certainly do not wish the smaller charities to be excluded from the rehabilitation revolution. The organisations that she mentions are not in the pilot scheme that we are running in Peterborough, where the social impact bond involves two key voluntary organisations, and we want that to continue in the other pilots that we are pursuing.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

We obviously welcome the rehabilitation revolution, but is the Minister aware that there is concern among prison governors about the increased amount of time that inmates will be required to spend in their cells, thereby being unable to partake in any rehabilitation, because of the cuts to the prison budget? What assurances can he give prison governors that they will not have to increase the amount of time for which prisoners are just banged up?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that prisoners were also spending too much time in their cells and not pursuing purposeful activity under the previous Government, when there were increases in spending, year on year. So this problem is not simply linked to spending. We are determined that prisons should be places of work and purposeful activity, so that we can focus on reducing reoffending.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Assuming that payment-by-results schemes get beyond the pilot stage, what commissioning organisations do Ministers envisage deciding between private, public and third sector bidders, and how will the scheme function to provide contracts on a scale that charities and third sector organisations can undertake?

[Nick Herbert]

As we set out in the Green Paper, we are consulting on how the five pilot schemes should proceed in various sectors, in order to see how we can make payment by results work. The existing pilot, involving the Peterborough social impact bond, is also still running. Our intentions are to unlock the expertise of the independent and third sectors in order to reduce reoffending, and to examine how the public sector can participate in the schemes.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In the corner of Staffordshire and Cheshire, we have a state-of-the-art community chaplaincy scheme, which has got reoffending down to 12 %, compared with the national average of 70%. In the meeting that the Ministers have promised to have with Staffordshire Members, will they undertake when considering rehabilitation to take account of the best practice shown by that scheme in Stoke-on-Trent?

[Nick Herbert]

Those are precisely the kind of schemes whose expertise we want to unlock, and we want to engage more of them where we can. The rehabilitation revolution will provide an opportunity to do that. The key is to upscale such projects and make them more widely available, which is why payment by results offers such an important opportunity.

Police

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2011-12 (House of Commons Paper No. 771), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

As well as seeking the House’s approval for the grant, I want to explain why this settlement for the police is necessary, challenging but manageable, and how the Government are helping the service to meet the challenge.

On 13 December, I laid before the House the Government’s proposed allocations of grants to police authorities in England and Wales. Following that, the Government held a six-week consultation on the proposed allocation of funding, during which 34 representations were received from across 20 force areas. I would like to thank hon. Members, members of police forces, police authorities and other policing organisations across the country for taking the time to share their views on the provisional settlement. Their comments have been considered carefully and fully.

Having inherited the largest peacetime deficit in Britain’s history, the Government had no option but to reduce public spending, and a police service that spends more than £13 billion a year cannot be exempt from a requirement to save public money. The October spending review set the overall cut in funding at 20% in real terms over four years, and it set the profile of the reduction. I accept that the settlement is challenging, but the Government believe that it is manageable, and that if savings are made in the right areas the service to the public can be maintained and, indeed, improved.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says that the settlement is challenging. Does he accept that it is more challenging for some forces than for others, and that a force in Merseyside depends far more on central Government grant than a force in Surrey, which raises half its funds locally? Will he consider, for the purpose of future years, looking again at an issue that is causing great concern in my constituency?

[Nick Herbert]

I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s observation that different forces raise different amounts from local taxpayers, and I shall deal with it shortly. I remain open-minded about the issue, given that the report relates to allocations for the next two years.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the past few years Essex police have made efficiency savings of 25%? Helicopter, payroll and legal services are now being shared, but Harlow police station remains open 24 hours a day, and our front-line services have been protected.

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. There are examples throughout the country—and I intend to provide some—of police forces that are making significant efficiency savings, and working in a smarter way that improves the service to the public even when funds have been reduced. It is clearly possible to achieve that.

It has been said that the profile of the cuts is front-loaded so that forces must find the biggest savings at an early stage. The profile reflects the need to make early progress on reducing the deficit, and it is set, but we must view the grant reductions in context. The biggest cut does not fall in the first year. The average cash reduction in grant is 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third, and 1% in the fourth.

It is also important to remember that a 20% reduction in Government funding in real terms does not mean a 20% reduction in force spending power. Forces do not receive all their funding from central Government; on average they receive about a quarter of it from the council tax component of precept, which is determined locally. If police authorities and, thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners choose to increase precept at the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the settlement represents a 14% real-terms reduction in overall funding over four years. Of course I recognise that the local contribution to police spending varies considerably between forces, and I shall deal with that aspect shortly.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Why does the Minister think that a force such as that in Cheshire should lose 200 front-line police officers while the Government are spending money on an unnecessary switch to political police commissioners? My constituents would much prefer that money to be spent on putting officers on the beat.

[Nick Herbert]

I have explained this to the House before, but I am happy to do so again for the benefit of the hon. Lady. If she looks at the allocations that we have made, she will see that the additional cost of holding an election for police and crime commissioners will not come from force budgets, but has been provided separately by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The argument that, because a cost is involved in the holding of an election, that election should not take place is a very foolish one, and a particularly odd one for an elected Member of Parliament to advance. When the Labour party proposed five different referendums in its manifesto, I did not notice its advancing the argument that a cost would be involved. I should also point out that it is now Labour’s policy for police authority chairs to be directly elected, and that the cost of holding those elections would arise every four years. Perhaps the hon. Lady should remonstrate with those on her party’s Front Bench if she considers that that is not money well spent. There is now agreement on both sides that there should be direct elections, and a cost is involved in that policy. If the Opposition did not believe that a cost was involved, they should not have advanced the policy and voted for it, as they did in Committee just a few weeks ago.

Let me return to the real effect of the funding reductions on forces. Humberside’s force raises the average 25% of its revenue through precept. If we assume that it chooses to adopt the freeze in council tax next year, its total funding will then fall by £5.5 million, or 2.9% of its total income of some £190 million. That is challenging, but it is not unmanageable. As Opposition Members have pointed out, the reductions in years three and four will be smaller.

Some forces, and some Members, have argued that the amount that each force raises in precept should be taken into account in the determination of funding reductions. I understand their argument, because forces that raise very little from precept will face a larger cut than those that raise a great deal. After careful consideration, however, I decided that there would be a number of objections to such an adjustment. First, it would be said that we were penalising council tax payers in other areas who already pay far more for their policing services, and who have experienced a big increase in council tax in previous years. That would certainly be unfair. Secondly, by subsidising forces in that way—including large forces with greater capacity—we would be asking others to take a larger cut in central grant than 20%, and that too would have been regarded as unfair. The fair solution, and the one that was expected by forces and authorities, was to treat all forces the same by making equal cuts in grant.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Minister appears to have borrowed that very doubtful concept of spending power from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and I am afraid that it is no more reputable in his hands than it was in those of his right hon. Friend. The truth is that there will be a 20% cut in grant, and the truth is that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that a cut of more than 12% will affect police availability. Why does the Minister disagree with HMIC—which has said that a cut of 12% is possible, but that anything beyond that will cut into the front line—and with the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who has said that there will be an effect on front-line policing?

[Nick Herbert]

There are two answers to that. First, forces on average receive a quarter of their funding from local taxpayers, so it does not make sense to consider only the amount that they receive from central Government. What matters to a force is its total spending power, and it is hardly disreputable to take that into account. Secondly, although I do not disagree with the conclusions of the important report of the inspectorate of constabulary—with which I will deal shortly—I think it possible, as I will explain, to make savings that were beyond the remit of its report.

I am pleased that Opposition Members apparently agree with the policy of the inspectorate of constabulary that forces can save more than £1 billion a year without affecting the front line and while protecting visibility, because that is very important.

[Stephen Twigg]

I understand the Minister’s explanation, which, in a sense, constitutes a fuller response to my earlier point, but may I urge him to reconsider in future years? The main reason for the contrast between the sources of funding for forces in, say, Merseyside and Surrey is the fact that Merseyside has a higher level of social and economic deprivation. In recent years, council tax payers in my constituency have paid more for the police and have not experienced a freeze, but in practice they will experience a much bigger cut than those in Surrey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier that we must remain open-minded about the impact in future years, and we will. I think that this is the fairest approach, and it is the approach that I am taking in relation to the cut in central Government funding. Most of the funding that a force receives through the grant will result from the application of a formula that recognises local need. I know that this raises issues, but ultimately I decided that the right approach to the cut in central Government funding was to treat each force fairly. That is why I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

May I remind the Minister that Northamptonshire police’s grant funding will decrease by 5.1% next year, when it should have decreased by only 0.9%? That is due to the damping formula, under which Northamptonshire police will lose £3.4 million in 2011-12 and a further £3.7 million in 2012-13. They are subsidising forces throughout the country. Will the Minister promise to look at this matter for next year’s grant?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May we have shorter inventions too, please? Will the hon. Gentleman give me that promise for the future?

[Nick Herbert]

I have met my hon. Friend and his local chief constable. He knows that I consider this matter very carefully, and he made his points very well on behalf of his constituents. I will discuss damping in a moment, but my hon. Friend’s comments reflect the fact that there will always be differences of view in this House between Members whose police forces benefit from damping and who therefore do not wish to see any change in its application, and Members whose forces have, effectively, paid out under damping and who desperately wish there to be a change. It is therefore not possible for the Government to satisfy everybody. We have had to take decisions in the round, and in accordance with what we consider to be the best and fairest way to address the totality of policing in this country.

As I have said, I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut. As a result, each force will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2011-12 and 2012-13, thereby ensuring that no one force will face an unacceptably large reduction in its budget. This mirrors the approach we took in the in-year savings following the emergency Budget and, importantly, it is what police forces were expecting and planning upon.

I appreciate that different forces have different views on this decision, as do hon. Members, and I understand why forces such as the West Midlands and Dorset—and, indeed, Northamptonshire—are keen to see damping phased out or removed entirely, while others such as Cumbria and Cheshire welcome its retention. As I have said, in making decisions such as these I must, of course, think about policing as a whole. I also appreciate the wider case against damping, and there is a strong argument for moving at the right time to a full application of the formula, recognising the policing needs of each area, but doing so now would have created real difficulty. I should also point out that the vast majority of funding that forces receive is allocated according to the formula. Therefore, force level allocations will remain as I announced in December.

Historically, there have been a number of ring-fenced grants to police forces. The Government’s general approach has been to remove ring-fencing and to roll funding into the main grant so that forces have greater local flexibility in determining how resources are spent. That has been the case for the rural policing fund. From 2006-07, it had already been amalgamated with four other specific grants to create what is known as rule 2 grant, but we are now rolling that into the police main grant. I want to emphasise, especially to Members representing rural constituencies, that as result of my decision on damping levels the decision on rolling this grant into the main grant means that no force will be worse off.

In some instances, I believe the case for ring-fencing grants remains strong. Outside London, the neighbourhood policing fund will be ring-fenced for the next two years to ensure the continuing funding of police community support officers, who play a valuable role in community policing. When police and crime commissioners are introduced, it will be up to them to make decisions over funding. In London, where the Mayor can already exercise this local determination, the ring fence is being lifted now, but the fund is being maintained at £340 million next year and £338 million the following year. When some Members make their allegations about cuts in front-line policing, they might like to note that that ring-fenced fund has been maintained.

The counter-terrorism specific grant has been relatively protected with a 10% cut in real terms over four years. This is a cut of just 1% in cash terms, and must be seen against a very rapid increase in resource and capital spending—some 49% in the last four years. The Government and the police service are confident that there will be no reduction in police effectiveness in this crucial area, where savings can be made but where well over £500 million will continue to be spent each year.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister has rightly put the emphasis on the local areas, because it is their budget in the end. Does he not agree, however, that there is a responsibility on the Home Office to show leadership in respect of local forces? That is especially the case for procurement; the Home Office should encourage local forces to collaborate and pool resources in order to procure.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I will address that issue later, as I intend to set out the savings that I believe can be made. The Home Office has a role to play in driving that, and in asking for the leadership of forces to share services and collaborate so that we can realise the considerable savings that are possible in procurement.

I was talking about funding to ensure national security. Similarly, funding for Olympic security has been prioritised. Up to £600 million will remain available if required for the safety and security programme, as originally pledged, although we expect that that should be delivered for rather less, at £475 million.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If it transpires that the Minister can pay for Olympic security at the lower figure as he hopes, what will he do with the extra money? Will it be reinvested to make up for some of the police cuts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

Well, I think it is important that up until the Olympics the pledged sum remains in place in order to ensure security. Such decisions can be taken afterwards.

The Metropolitan police will continue to receive a national, international and capital city grant, recognising the unique duties they perform. It will be worth £200 million next year, although it will be reduced in subsequent years on the same basis as the police main grant.

The Government’s absolute priority is to ensure that the England and Wales police service retains and enhances its ability to protect and serve the public. Understandably, there has been much focus on the impact of the settlement on police numbers. Given the need to reduce public spending, we cannot guarantee the number of police and staff, which had reached record levels—almost 250,000 people—and neither, of course, could the previous Government.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the number of police officers will be reduced. Recently, he is supposed to have said that there is no link between the commission of crime and the number of police. Does he still stand by that statement?

[Nick Herbert]

I did not say that; I said there was no simple link, and there is not.

All parties agree with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that police forces can make savings of over £1 billion a year while maintaining police availability. However, that will mean smaller police work forces in order to support the £1 billion a year of savings HMIC says can be made, which I do not think the Opposition have understood. That is why I regard it as so unacceptable that the Opposition should campaign on the issue of police numbers when they are committed to cutting spending by over £1 billion a year, which will lead to a reduction in police numbers.

The challenge for the service is to improve efficiency, drive out waste and increase productivity so that front-line policing is prioritised and the service to the public is maintained or improved.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.

[Nick Herbert]

I always know it is a mistake to take interventions from my hon. Friend, but no doubt it is a mistake I will continue to make. I enjoy his interventions, but I note that, although it seemed to me that Opposition Front-Bench Members were giving lots of nods to what he said, they have still not understood the importance of ensuring a proper balance between security and liberty in this country. In spite of everything the new leader of their party has said, they have still not understood that.

There are also areas beyond the HMIC’s report—this comes directly to the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—where savings can be made by forces working together. There are 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 police forces, and some 5,000 staff. We estimate that savings of some £330 million could be found through joint procurement of goods, services and IT. The vast bulk of these savings —around a third of a billion pounds or more—will be additional to the savings identified by HMIC.

The time for just talking about IT convergence, collective procurement, collaboration, sharing and outsourcing services is over. We cannot afford not to do these things, and we cannot afford to delay, so, where necessary, the Government will mandate the changes required. That is why I am about to lay regulations before Parliament to require the police service to buy certain IT vehicles, and so on, through specified national framework arrangements.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I welcome very much what he has just said. This issue has been the subject of much discussion in the Home Affairs Committee, driven by its former member, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). There is a need for central procurement: a list, a book, a catalogue—not quite like Argos, but something that can be used as a template for various police forces to choose from.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support and I hope this approach will command support across the whole House, because it does make sense for the 43 forces to procure together where that will make savings; and the savings are quite considerable.

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

Pursuing that point, if there is some rationalisation among the 2,000 IT systems, would that not also lead to significantly more effective policing and a reduced risk, for instance, of systems being out of synch and data getting lost between different systems?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend that making these efficiencies and improvements in business processes is about not just saving money, but improving the quality of the service. Those two things are not incompatible, and it is time we stopped talking as though they were.

[Robert Halfon]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I want to make a little more progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

The inspectorate’s report focuses on reducing police force costs to average levels, but why should forces not be able to go further by matching the performance of the best, rather than merely the average? If forces improve productivity and adjust to the level of spend typical of the more efficient forces, that could add another £350 million to the savings calculated in HMIC’s report.

Pay, too, was outside the scope of the report. It accounts for the bulk of total police spending—some £11 billion last year. Any organisation in which the majority of the cost is pay, and which is facing tough times, has to look at its pay bill. The Government have announced a policy for a two-year pay freeze across the public sector. Subject to any recommendations from the police negotiating board and agreement on staff pay, this might save some £350 million. We have asked Tom Winsor to review the remuneration and conditions of service of police officers and staff. The Government have asked the review to make recommendations that are fair to, and reasonable for, both the taxpayer and police officers and staff. I want to emphasise the importance of fairness to police officers, who cannot strike and who often do a difficult and dangerous job on the public’s behalf. Tom Winsor’s first report is due to be published in February, with the second part due in June. Taken together, we believe there are potential savings of some £2.2 billion a year by 2014-15, which is greater than the real reduction in central grant.

These changes require a fundamental redesign of policing, with far greater collaboration, shared services and the potential use of outsourcing. However, this does not mean a worse service to the public. Savings must be driven in the back and middle-offices of police forces—areas where functions are important, even if invisible to the public, but could be done more efficiently. These functions have grown disproportionately as the money rolled in and bureaucracy predominated. As Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester police, told the Home Affairs Committee earlier this month,

“some of our headquarters operations had got too big.”

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

Does the Minister not accept that there is a danger that if forces cut back such staff—for instance, North Wales police is cutting one in four back-room staff—all that happens is that front-line officers have to be pulled off the beat to do that job?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I do not accept that at all. The challenge is to ensure that those functions are done more efficiently; it is not simply a question of handing the function to someone else. No one is saying that back and middle-office functions can or should be abolished, but they can become much leaner.

Furthermore, protecting the front-line service does not mean setting it in aspic. Productivity at the front line can be improved, too, so that resources are better deployed in order to maintain or improve the service to the public. For example, West Yorkshire police have significantly reduced the time taken to investigate a crime. Improving the standard of initial investigation, they reduced the average time taken to investigate low-level crime by 85%. Wiltshire police have significantly reduced the time neighbourhood and response officers spend in custody centres, and off the streets, from an average of 27 minutes to an average of 10 minutes. That is worth 3,000 extra hours of street policing.

In Brighton, Sussex police have put in place a dedicated team for secondary investigations, reducing the amount of paperwork that response officers have to complete and allowing them to return quickly to the streets after answering a call. This saved nearly £1 million, improved response times and sped up the time it takes to complete an investigation.

Surrey police have changed their arrangements in order to co-locate some officers in council buildings, rather than their remaining in little-used police buildings, thereby saving money. That has helped to fund the recruitment of additional constables.

[Hazel Blears]

The Minister will be aware that the area-based grants that many deprived local authorities have received to date have been used, as with my own council in Salford, to tackle antisocial behaviour in exactly that way—by having co-located teams dealing with the same families. That area-based grant has now been completely abolished—by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. If there is any thought of joined-up government, clearly, this is not it.

[Nick Herbert]

I simply do not accept the right hon. Lady’s contention that it is somehow not possible for services to work together because they are receiving less money; that is a strong incentive for them to work together and to save resources.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me for a second time. Given what I said earlier about Essex police collaborating successfully with police forces in the south-east, such as Kent, on payroll services and on procuring helicopters and other vehicles, and given what he said about passing regulation for those who do not collaborate, will he look favourably on forces that are collaborating in future funding formulas?

[Nick Herbert]

Of course we will continue to look at all these issues, and I welcome the collaboration that has taken place in my hon. Friend’s force. HMIC was clear that collaboration has to proceed at a faster pace, and we will look at all the potential incentives to ensure that that is the case.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said something terribly important about mandating collaboration, which I have long argued for, particularly through the Policing and Crime Bill in 2009. He talked about collaboration in the context of procurement. What about mandated collaboration in the context of protective services?

[Nick Herbert]

There is strong potential for forces to collaborate on protective services, and again, we want to see such things happen. We have ensured in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is currently in Committee, that strong duties will be placed on police and crime commissioners to collaborate. It is very important that forces do that. Indeed, in a speech I gave a couple of weeks ago, I said that the age of police fiefdoms is over. There is a need for police forces to work together more effectively. The Government do not believe in forced mergers of police forces, but we cannot have 43 forces doing things all on their own when there are great savings and efficiencies to be made in exactly the sort of area that my hon. Friend represents by working together.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned some of the collaboration taking place between the Sussex and Surrey forces, and the better working with local authorities, which relates to an earlier point. He will know that from 1 April West Sussex is to have one division, which is a way for police administration to be more efficient, and it also leads to better front-line services.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I also gave the example of Surrey, where co-location has proved possible despite the funding reductions that have taken place. It shows that with innovation it is possible to think afresh about how these services are delivered to the public.

The key to the changes that I have outlined is service improvement from the same or less resource. As Derbyshire’s chief constable said last month:

“People won’t really see much difference in terms of neighbourhood policing, emergency response and uniformed patrols—we’ll still have a huge amount of people in the front line.”

We must also tackle the bureaucracy, which has tied up police time. It is no use focusing only on police numbers if too much police time is spent on inefficient or unnecessary tasks. Every hour of police time we save by cutting red tape is an hour’s more potential time spent on front-line duties. Scrapping the stop form and reducing the stop- and-search form, which officers have to complete, could save up to 800,000 hours of officer time.

I recognise the challenge facing policing. I also appreciate that many in the police work force are worried about their remuneration and indeed their jobs. I certainly do not belittle that concern, but my first priority must be to ensure that the best service is provided to the public within the financial constraints that we all face. Every chief constable I have met has impressed upon me his or her determination to do everything possible to protect front-line services while dealing with the reduction in funding. The Government are determined to work with the police service to ensure that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps I should ask the hon. Gentleman what he means by the “front-line”. He may think that trained police officers can just be got rid off without that having any impact on the communities they serve, but that is not what his constituents think and it is not what the people of Staffordshire will think when 70 police officers are cut as part of the planned cuts that his Government are introducing.

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Lady is committed to cutting police funding by more than £1 billion a year. Is she saying that that can be done without reducing the size of the work force? How many of the 10,000 police officers that she has said are to go are front-line officers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will come back to the point that the Minister raises about what Labour’s plans would be, because that is important, but first let me address the issue about the front line. The Prime Minister promised to protect the front line and he promised to carpet any Minister putting forward front-line cuts. The Home Secretary said that it is possible for the police to make significant reductions in their budgets “without affecting front-line policing.” But officers are being lost from the front line every single day—their number has reduced by 2,000 since the election alone. London is losing 300 sergeants from the safer neighbourhood teams, Birmingham has already lost police from its community teams, and the plans of the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire forces have already troubled residents. Thanks to budget cuts, those forces have told gun owners that they will not be doing home visits and people can renew their gun licence by phone. The police have said in response:

“Unfortunately in the current climate policing is having 20% removed from its budgets we have to make the best use of that money and we are adopting a risk based approach.”

Those police have been put in an impossible position. What is more front line than keeping neighbourhoods safe or preventing gun crime? What is more front line than 10,000 trained police officers?

We have asked the Government what they mean by protecting the front line. In the other place in December, they were asked for their definition of the front-line policing that the Home Secretary said she would protect. It took more than two months for Baroness Neville-Jones to reply:

“There is no formally agreed definition of frontline police services.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. WA50.]

Now we know why they will not protect those services—they do not even know what they are. But crime victims and communities across the country know exactly what front-line services are and they can see that they are under threat every day from this Government.

[Nick Herbert]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Minister can define them now, I will give way to him.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. If she cannot define front-line services, how does she know that officers are going from the front line? Will she answer the question I asked? As she is committed to cutting police funding by more than £1 billion a year, will she admit that that would mean a smaller police work force?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Minister has tried to claim that police officer jobs would go under Labour’s plans. Let us be clear: our view is that we should be giving the police enough money to protect police officers and police community support officers across the country because we believe they are doing a good job. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, did indeed announce plans for just more than £1 billion to be made in efficiency savings over this Parliament and yes, we have made it clear that we would have cut the police budget in line with those efficiency plans. He set out measures through which that could be done, such as greater collaboration, procurement savings and better management of staff and shifts to save money on overtime. We agree that the police service should continue to do more of what it has already been doing to improve efficiency. However, the Minister is cutting not £1 billion but £2 billion. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary identified 12% of efficiency savings, not 20%, and it said:

“A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If four people ring up and then one rings a second time, does that person count as a fifth person? Presumably the Home Office will set out guidance and red tape for local communities and police to follow.

Where is the Home Secretary today? That is an important question, because I understand that she has been sighted in the building. I know that such debates are normally attended by Ministers of State, but normally Home Secretaries do not cut the police grant by 20%. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is coming here to defend his cuts, so why will she not defend hers? Could it be because she knows that she got stitched up in the spending review and so will not defend it? She left the Minister out on his own—a very thin blue line—and will not join the police cuts front line.

The Government are taking a gamble with crime and policing, just as they are taking a gamble with the economy.

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, which I thank her for. Will she please answer my question, which I will now ask a third time? Will she admit that the cuts of more than £1 billion in policing to which she has committed could only be achieved by making the police work force smaller?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said very clearly that we believe that the police should have the money to protect the number of police officers and police community support officers. Those are the numbers of staff that we believe ought to be protected across the country, in contrast to the cut of 10,000 in police officers. We think that we should have 10,000 more than the number the Minister is now pursuing right across the country. It is wrong for Britain and wrong for communities, and the public know it. No matter how many games he plays with smoke and mirrors, the public know it and want the extra police officers.

We will support those extra 10,000 police officers and would provide the funding to support them, because we think that that is the right thing to do. The Government are taking a gamble with crime and policing, just as they taking a gamble with the economy. They are cutting too far and too fast. They are risking economic growth and jobs and now are risking public safety and the fight against crime. Their Back Benchers should think again.

The Liberal Democrats are voting for a cut of 10,000 police officers, instead of the increase of 3,000 that they promised, and the Conservatives are ripping up hundreds of years of supporting the police in order to cut the front line. I say to Members of both parties that if they vote for these cuts today, they are badly out of touch with what their constituents want and are turning their backs on the fight against crime. Britain was not broken, but the Government are doing their best to break it now. Those Members should join us in telling the Government to go back, think again and come back with a better plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I will not focus the rest of my speech on Liberal Democrat broken promises, but the case has been very well made.

I intervened on the Minister to raise the question of the fairness of the distribution of the cuts. He set out the consultation process in some detail, and entirely understandably set out that the forces and authorities that would lose out if there were some attempt to protect those that were more reliant on central Government funding had lobbied against that. I appreciate what he said about the nature of the formula and the difficulty of changing it, and clearly the cuts relate to the original formula. Unfortunately, I am not suggesting that that can be changed quickly, but I repeat what I said in my intervention: I hope that the Government will consider the matter as we move forward.

Looking at the estimated police budget figures that the Library has produced, we see that in the forthcoming financial year, 2011-12, Merseyside’s estimated police budget, taking into account local revenue raising as well as central Government funding, will be cut by 5.8% whereas Surrey’s cut will be 3.7%. There is every indication that that gap will apply again in the following year and therefore have a cumulative effect.

In Merseyside, there have consistently been increases in the police authority precept over recent years. The local police authority has not thought, “We’re getting all this money from central Government, so we can let our council tax payers off and freeze the precept or have only a modest increase.” There have been significant increases in the amount contributed by council tax payers in Merseyside to the funding of the police. The basic reality is that on average, people in Merseyside are poorer than people in Surrey. The reason why Merseyside’s local police depend more on central Government funding than others is primarily to do with deprivation. That point applies also to other authorities, and when there are cuts on the scale that we are seeing, it is a cause for great concern. To his credit, the Minister undertook earlier to consider the matter again in future. Perhaps I might ask that he meet Merseyside MPs at his early convenience to discuss those concerns.

[Nick Herbert]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Twigg]

The Minister nods, so I am delighted to accept that we can have that meeting.

Clearly, the cuts will have an impact on forces right across the country, but that impact will differ. When there are spending cuts on such a scale, it is incumbent on the Government to consider the unfairness of those different impacts. There is clearly a need for savings in public expenditure on the police, and HMIC has considered the matter in great detail and come up with the quoted figure of 12%. My contention today is, first, that by going so significantly above that figure, the Government will inevitably damage the police service across the country; secondly, that the effects are not fair or consistent but differ for the reasons that I have given; and thirdly, that those effects are compounded by the impact of other cuts in public spending, particularly local government cuts.

Merseyside police receives direct funding from Liverpool and other local authorities for aspects of its work on antisocial behaviour. I hope that the councils will be able to protect that funding, but I am not confident that they will be fully able to do so. On top of the cuts that we are discussing today, Liverpool’s police force and others around the country will therefore lose further funding for some of the important partnership work that they do on tackling antisocial behaviour.

I urge the Government to think again, and I urge Home Office Ministers to press the Treasury to give policing and law and order the priority that the Government have given schools and the national health service. Voters—our constituents—would expect us to give the police service that priority, and I hope that in the light of today’s debate, the Government will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that hon. Members have made. First, I have listened to the points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and I understand the implications for forces that raise less money from local council tax payers. I have explained why the decision we took was fair, I have said that we will continue to discuss these issues and the impacts on forces, and I am happy to have a meeting.

I always pay attention to the views of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I believe we have set out in clear terms how the police landscape must change, but his remarks will no doubt move me to make a further speech on the issue, a copy of which I will of course send to him, to clarify the position. I draw his and the House’s attention to the speech I gave to the City Forum two weeks ago when I set out in terms how the savings that we need to achieve could be made.

I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who admonished the House about the drive to reduce bureaucracy. I took every word he said seriously. The Government will say more about this and we are driving this issue, as is the leadership of the police service. We have made progress but there is more to do. I shall write to my hon. Friend regarding his additional points about how we should secure the very important reductions in the bureaucratic burden on the police.

I particularly welcomed the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who has had to leave the Chamber. They focused on how resources are deployed rather than just on the amount of money.

Both sides, including the Opposition, admit that police funding has to be cut, so both sides must recognise that that must mean the overall police work force will fall. What is totally disreputable about the Opposition’s attack is that they would cut funding and they know that that would mean a smaller work force, but they still mounted that political attack. The public will see through it. In dismissing the finding in the HMIC report that police availability and visibility is too low, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) shows that she is new to the job and has homework to do. The report says:

“The fact is that general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low.”

She should pay attention to the inspectorate’s recommendations rather than dismissing them so lightly after just a few weeks in her job.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister withdraw his claim that the 11% figure was entirely due to Labour’s red tape, as opposed to the fact that some police officers are on night shift or late shift and that some of them are doing work on the drugs force, organised crime and a whole series of other things that are not included in that 11%?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Lady should start quoting people accurately. I made no such claim. Let me read the second part of what the inspectorate said in the same paragraph:

“Several factors have combined to produce this ‘thin blue line’ of which shift patterns, risk management, bureaucracy and specialisation are the most significant.”

Visibility and availability are too low, they can be improved and she is foolish to dismiss that report.

[Yvette Cooper]

On that point, will the Minister look again at the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in which he said the figure was because of Labour’s red tape, and will he withdraw it?

[Nick Herbert]

It is, in part, because of Labour’s red tape that visibility is too low. The right hon. Lady should understand that and should not dismiss the inspectorate’s report. The situation could be improved by dealing with all these issues.

The Opposition are in an untenable position, because they would cut police funding and they know that that would mean a smaller police work force.

Question put,

Police Funding (Devon and Cornwall)

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I regret to say that I disagreed with almost every word that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said. Normally it is possible in these debates to agree about a great deal—about the value of the local force and so on—and I certainly agree with him in his assessment of the chief constable, but many of the points that he made were party political and he has not addressed what I accept are the considerable challenges that confront policing generally and his local force in a way that is sensible or helpful to the debate.

First, we have to deal with the deficit, but the right hon. Gentleman appears to be in denial about that. He should know that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was briefly shadow Home Secretary, accepted that the police would have to be cut. He said that he agreed with the independent inspectorate of constabulary that the police could make savings of some £1 billion a year. The previous shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), when he was Home Secretary, refused, at the time of the general election, to guarantee police numbers. The Opposition have admitted that they would have made significant cuts in policing. We also know that they had £40 billion-worth of cuts, but they had not said how they would make them.

There is no disagreement about the fact that, in the current circumstances, the police would have to make savings, because there would be cuts to their budgets under Governments of either party. We might disagree about the scale of the cuts, but for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend to his local force that it will not have to make savings is wrong.

I simply do not accept—I shall return to this—that because forces have to make savings as part of their contribution to dealing with the deficit, it will necessarily impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the service that they provide to the public. The right hon. Gentleman did not make the case that there would be a detrimental effect on the public; he simply asserted it and quoted one sergeant. That is not a responsible suggestion. All parties agree that forces will have to make savings. We need to debate how the forces can make savings, and where the priorities should lie.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that we have scrapped extra funding for Devon and Cornwall police. I understood him to mean that we have scrapped the rural policing fund.

[Mr Bradshaw]

indicated assent.

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman did not note that we have maintained the neighbourhood policing fund, which will enable the continued funding of police community support officers for the next two years. It will then be for the locally elected police and crime commissioners to decide how to deploy those funds—I shall return to that later. The general direction of travel is to roll all those grants into one, so as to give greater discretion to chief officers about how they can spend the money, but it is not true to say that we scrapped extra funding simply because the grant has gone.

The rural policing fund has been consolidated into the rule 2 grant, which has been the case since 2006-07. The decision behind rolling the rule 2 grant, the crime fighting fund and the basic command unit fund into the main police grant from 2011-12 is, as I have argued, to give more freedom. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that no force will lose funding as a result of rolling that grant into the main grant over the next two years.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is the Minister saying that the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall is wrong on that point?

[Nick Herbert]

I am not sure, because I do not know exactly what he was quoting the chief constable as saying. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, and if necessary the chief constable, that the nominal loss of the rural policing fund will not mean that forces will lose funding in the next two years. It is simply that the grants have been rolled into one. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have scrapped extra funding, and he has implied that we somehow do not care about rural areas, but I challenge him on that.

I meet chief constables regularly, and I have spoken to the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. I recognise the significant challenge that he faces, and I realise that he has to make considerable savings. There will be a loss of police officers, which will not be easy for him, the force and the staff who will have to go. However, I am impressed with his commitment to do everything that he can do drive savings in areas that will ensure that service to the public is not reduced. Indeed, his declared ambition is to improve the service that the public receive and to improve the visibility of local officers, despite the savings that he has to make. That can be done by more effective deployment, by changing shift patterns and by improving productivity on the front line. He tells me that his ambition is for the number of police officers engaged in local policing to go up slightly. Chief constables, including in Devon and Cornwall, are rising to the challenge of reduced funding, recognise the situation that forces are in and are finding savings, in accordance with the view of the independent inspectorate of constabulary that those savings are available.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Home Secretary reached a poor deal with the Chancellor, but I disagree. The reduction in grant is lower than was indicated by the Chancellor at the time of the emergency Budget. It is a 20% loss of overall grant in real terms over four years, but that does not take account of the fact that the force meets about a third of its funding from local council tax payers through the precept. When that is taken into account, the loss in grant faced by the force is not 20% in real terms over four years. I accept that it is a significant sum, but the savings can be made.

I do not agree—in fact, I strongly disagree—with what the right hon. Gentleman said about police and crime commissioners. It was the previous Government’s policy to introduce direct accountability into police authorities, and they proposed two sets of policies before abandoning them. He should know that is now Opposition policy to have directly elected police chairs of police authorities, but the cost of holding those direct elections once every four years would be exactly the same as the cost of electing police and crime commissioners. His argument that the policy is unacceptable on cost grounds goes out of the window. That is now Opposition policy, which would cost more.

I want to make it clear that we are determined that police and crime commissioners will cost no more to run than police authorities, because there is no reason why they should do so. However, there will be a cost to holding elections for these new posts once every four years. It will cost £50 million once every four years, but that money has been found by the Chancellor and allocated to the Home Office. The money will not come out of individual force budgets, because it was separately negotiated by the Home Secretary and provided separately by the Chancellor. It is not true to say that money has been wasted on this policy. In any case, it is a bad argument against the introduction of democracy in any form to object to it on the ground of cost.

How many referendums did the Labour party propose in its manifesto? Did the party advance arguments of cost when it proposed referendums left, right and centre in its manifesto? No, it did not. Does the Labour party advance the argument that we should not hold a referendum on AV in May on the ground that the referendum will cost money? No, I do not think so. The cost will be minimal—it is a tiny fraction of the overall policing budget—and it will be incurred only once every four years.

The benefit will be far greater accountability, because an elected individual will represent people in the force area and hold the police to account. That will help to drive more efficient policing that is responsive to the local community. It is not surprising that members of police authorities are opposed to this policy, because the authorities will be abolished. I hardly expect their members to say that they would like to go, and many of them are campaigning to keep their positions.

A single elected individual will represent the whole of Devon and Cornwall, holding the police force there to account just as the chairman of the police authority covers the whole area now. Every local authority will be represented on the police and crime panel, including district councils, and they have not been represented before in the governance of policing. Local areas will continue to have a say.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I do not think that Conservative members of Devon and Cornwall police authority will take kindly to the Minister’s suggestion that they oppose the idea only because they are worried about their own jobs. These are honourable people who have entered public service and who care about the quality of the police authority. The chairman of the authority, Mike Bull, is non-political and independent. He has no interest in defending the police authority, because his term of office will come to an end. Those are not my words—they are what he said about the costs and drawbacks of the Minister’s proposals. If the Minister’s proposals are so good and so popular, why is it that no member of his party in Devon and Cornwall supports them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I was just making the point that I do not expect members of police authorities to be first in line in supporting a policy when their own positions are to be abolished. Their stance is hardly surprising. The general direction of travel towards democratic reform and having a greater democratic say in policing has been very popular in London, and it will be in the rest of the country.

I also reject the argument that the policy will somehow allow extremists to be elected. We know that the British National party polled a very low share of the vote nationally at the general election—I think that it was less than 2% of the national vote. It polled 15% in its best performance in a parliamentary constituency, which was in Barking where Nick Griffin stood. Given the size of the constituencies that we are talking about in relation to directly elected police and crime commissioners and the electoral system, it is almost inconceivable that such people will be elected. In fact, that argument is a complete red herring. The people must decide whom they wish to represent them, and it is right to give the people a say.

In conclusion, I am always willing to talk about the challenges confronting Devon and Cornwall police. I am absolutely committed to helping the force deliver efficient and effective policing and to ensuring that the officers will be there for the public who value and need them. I appreciate that the force, like other forces around the country, faces a considerable challenge. We have treated all forces equally, with each having to make an equal share of the cut. Chief constables know what the challenge is, and it is essential that they continue to drive savings in the back office, as the inspectorate says that they can, and drive savings in the middle office—

[Mr Bradshaw]

The Minister has referred to the inspectorate’s report three times now. Will he confirm that the report that he is talking about from the inspectorate of constabulary stated that a “redesign” of the police system could

“at best...save 12% of central government funding”?

That is nowhere near the cuts that his Government are now imposing, which is an important distinction.

[Nick Herbert]

I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the speech that I gave to the City Forum last week. I set out how the savings that the inspectorate identified—they amount to more than £1 billion a year, which is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, equivalent to 12% of central Government funding—can be delivered. There were also other things that the inspectorate did not take into account. For instance, there are the savings that will be realised from the two-year pay freeze. Those savings will amount to some £350 million. Some £380 million of savings are expected to be realised from procuring IT and other equipment together. Those were not taken into account in the inspectorate’s report.

There are also a number of other ways in which we can make savings. If police forces work together and redesign their businesses, we are confident that we can drive real savings in such a way that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of policing and not affect the service that the public expect—front-line policing, officers in neighbourhoods and on the streets, satisfactory response times and the investigation that is needed if crimes are committed. We believe that the service can be improved even as it becomes leaner.

I do not underestimate the challenge that faces the whole force, but we are in this position because, to quote the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Government, “There is no money.” This Government were left with the biggest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history. It is our responsibility to deal with it and it is in the long-term interests of all our public services that we deal with it. We must ask the police to make a share of the savings. We know that they can do so, and we will do everything possible to support them and to continue to protect policing, including in Devon and Cornwall. I am absolutely committed to doing everything I can to secure that and to working with the chief constable.

Question put and agreed to

Police Grant Report England and Wales (2011-12)

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has today laid before the House the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2011/12 (HC 771)”. The report sets out my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary’s, determination for 2011-12 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.

This statement also includes amounts that the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly Government intend to provide in 2012-13. Indicative overall amounts of Home Office grant are also provided for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Wanstead Flats (2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games)

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

On 16 September, Official Report, columns 62-63WS, I announced that the Government were undertaking a three-month public consultation on a proposed legislative reform order to make a temporary amendment to the Epping Forest Act 1878.

The proposed legislative reform order (to be made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006), will enable the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to construct a temporary muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats, part of Epping forest. It is proposed that this will take place for a period of 90 days during the summer of 2012 to support the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

The consultation closed on 9 December and I am grateful to those who responded. Twenty-four responses were received (as well as a further seven responses, which may have been from the same people, sent to the Home Office website) during the course of the 12-week public consultation. Of these 31 responses, 18 were against, eight were broadly supportive of the proposal or had no specific objections and five were ambivalent or did not address the consultation questions.

The main points to emerge from the consultation were:

The fear that the proposals would set a precedent for future development of the area and that the muster, briefing and deployment centre might remain on site;

Lack of information as to alternative sites;

Doubt as to whether the legislative reform order would apply for 120 days or 90 days;

Doubt that the £l70,000 payment in lieu of rent would be forthcoming to provide facilities for children and environmental improvements in the local area.

The Government are confident that these points will be met:

The Government have made it clear that the security requirements of the games are wholly exceptional and that they constitute no precedent whatever for future development of Wanstead Flats. The Government can see no circumstances in which something similar on Wanstead Flats would be required in the future;

The MPS has published, as planned, details of its site evaluation criteria (as well as its long and short-lists of proposed sites) as part of its planning permission application to Redbridge borough council. This showed that no other site met all the relevant criteria;

The MPS has confirmed that it will only require the site for a maximum period of 90 days. This limitation will be written into the legislative reform order;

The City of London corporation has said (and confirmed in public correspondence) that the £170,000 payment in lieu of rent will be used to fund long-term lasting improvements to Epping forest. Local people will also be consulted on how it should be spent. This funding is in addition to the cost of making good the site which will be borne separately by the MPS.

One other issue to emerge during the course of the consultation was the proposed use of the legislative reform order temporarily to remove the “burden” of the criminal offence in section 34 of the Epping Forest Act. During the consultation it became apparent that section 34 of the 1878 Act has in fact lapsed and that the criminal offence relating to enclosure of land on Epping forest (which needs to be removed on a temporary basis by the proposed legislative reform order) arises under byelaws made under section 36 of the Epping Forest Act 1878 rather than section 34 of the Act. We consider that the consultation remains valid and the proposed legislative reform order can proceed.

Muster, briefing and deployment centres are a tried and tested feature of large-scale police operations and will be a vital element of operational policing plans for the games. Given that the Government and other parties are in a position to meet the points made during consultation, it will now bring forward the proposed legislative reform order during 2011. As the consultation document made clear, the order will remove the prohibition on the enclosure of land for the fairground site part of Wanstead Flats in the summer of 2012 on a temporary basis only. The proposed legislative reform order will make no permanent changes to the 1878 Act nor will any lasting powers relating to Wanstead Flats or Epping forest be conferred on the police or any other public body. Full protection under the Act will resume at the end of the period.

A draft legislative reform order and accompanying explanatory document will be laid before Parliament under section 14 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 for scrutiny and consideration. The consultation responses have also been published in full on the Home Office website and copies have been placed in the House Library.

West Midlands Police

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate. I am delighted to be discussing these issues with him once again—I think for the third time today. I have also met him to discuss the funding of West Midlands police, and I know that he speaks with genuine concern, passion and interest about the subject, which is also motivated by the interests of his constituents and by wanting the best possible police service in his constituency and more widely in the west midlands. That is an ambition that the Government share. It is the first duty of the Government—of any Government—to ensure that the public are safe, and it is important to us all that we have an efficient and effective police service. However, the Government also have to deal with the deficit. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his comments. We can disagree about the pace at which the deficit is being dealt with, but Government Members argue that it is essential that it is dealt with as fast as we are proposing.

Nevertheless, I think that both sides agree that the police would have to make savings irrespective of how fast that deficit was reduced, and there is indeed agreement on both sides that the police can make substantial savings, so what we have is a discussion about the scale of those savings and how they can be delivered in a way that does not affect or damage the service that people are entitled to expect in their homes, in their workplace and on the streets. I believe that it will be possible for police forces across the country, including the West Midlands police, to restructure, make savings and drive down costs in a way that will enable them to deal with the reductions in grant that we have had to announce, without producing a service that is worse for the public. We are asking the police to make savings to meet a challenging funding settlement. We have always said that it would be challenging; it was announced in the spending review that the central Government grant to police forces is reducing by 20% in real terms over four years.

Not every force is affected in the same way, because the amount of resource that is available to forces depends on how much they raise from council tax payers. Every force raises some money from council tax payers. On average, that is about a quarter of the funding that they receive, so it is a highly significant share. The West Midlands force receives the second lowest amount from the council tax payer, a point that has been well made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. That means that the 20% reduction in real terms is more challenging for West Midlands than for other forces.

As I explained to the Home Affairs Committee today, we looked closely at whether it would be right or possible to adjust the grant reduction to take into account the fact that some forces, such as the West Midlands force, raise less from their precept, but there were a number of objections to that. One is that by doing so, we would be penalising council tax payers in other areas who already pay far more for their policing services and have had a big increase in council tax over previous years. That would be unfair. Also, by subsidising forces, including large forces such as West Midlands, in that way, we would be asking other forces to take a larger cut in central grant than 20%. They would have regarded that as very unfair.

It seems right and fair to treat all forces in the same way and ask that they deal with a 20% reduction in real terms. The implications of that are not the same in cash terms. The cash reduction for forces in the first year is 5.1%. In the second year it is 6.7% on average. Taking account of the specific grants that are added, the average reduction is 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third and 1% in the fourth. Those are cash figures and do not take into account inflation, but they illustrate the fact that although these are challenging reductions, they are manageable, provided that considerable savings can be achieved.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that forces together can save more than £1 billion a year—that is some 12% of their funding from central Government—while protecting front-line services. They can achieve that by redesigning their services, and specifically by making changes in their back and middle offices, including by outsourcing. That has happened to differing degrees across forces, but the West Midlands police are now looking at such a radical service redesign.

I met the chief constable again today. Indeed, I have just been with him, discussing these very issues. The kinds of project that the force is considering are those that would save large sums of money as it attempts to meet the budget reductions, but I do not believe that those changes would mean a reduction in service that would be felt by the public.

The Government have never been able to give a guarantee about police numbers, and nor were the previous Government. We recognise that police forces are having to institute a recruitment freeze and that some forces, including West Midlands police, are using the A19 procedure so that police officers who have reached 30 years of service retire. There will be reductions in the size of police work forces, and that is true for West Midlands police. However, that is not the same as saying that there will necessarily be a reduction in the quality of service for the public. The task for chief constables and their managers in the police force, supported by their policy authorities and the Government, is to find ways to drive the kind of service redesign that will mean that the public still see their police officers on the streets and still receive a good response from them and that the police are still able to engage in the kind of partnership activity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is so important in dealing with youth crime.

In addition to the savings that the inspectorate of constabulary identified, we believe that further savings could be made by police forces. I rehearsed some of those briefly with the Home Affairs Committee today and will be happy to do so again. For instance, we think that procurement of non-IT goods and services could save another £200 million a year, bearing in mind that police authorities currently spend £2.8 billion a year on equipment, goods and services. We also think that savings from IT will be possible if police forces collaborate. We have a new approach to procuring and managing IT. There are 2,000 IT systems between the 43 forces, employing around 5,000 staff. The general view in the service is that savings will be possible by managing that better, and the Government are determined to help drive that.

Furthermore, we have set up an independent review of pay and conditions under Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator, and it will produce its first report shortly. That will advise us on the right and proper balance between pay and conditions and whether we have the right arrangements in relation, for instance, to overtime, special priority payments and such matters. That will enable us to ensure that we have an affordable service, but also one that fairly remunerates officers, who do such an important job, recognising that they cannot strike and that many do a difficult and often dangerous job. We await Tom Winsor’s report and will then advise on our position. Any changes that might be made, including the possibility of a two-year pay freeze, which would also save significant sums of money for police forces and which we expect the rest of the public sector to undergo, would have to be agreed by the police negotiating board.

Despite the fact that we expect the overall size of the police work force to be reduced, including in the west midlands, we are absolutely determined to protect front-line services.

[Steve McCabe]

I recognise the difficult job that the Minister has. Does he have any plans to issue guidance or advice to the police on the significance of young people when considering their budgets? That group cannot vote and does not have a voice in the same way as adults, and that is part of the purpose of raising the matter.

[Nick Herbert]

I was going to move on to young people. I have no specific plans to issue that kind of guidance, partly because I do not think that I need to persuade chief officers or police forces about the importance of such work. They know that the significant investment that has been made in the development of neighbourhood policing and the growth of partnership working, whereby police officers are engaged with local authorities in crime reduction measures, particularly those affecting young people, has been a really important move. It has helped to reduce crime and to build public confidence, and my understanding is that chief officers, including Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, are committed to it.

We need to send a message to local authorities. They of course face equally challenging reductions in funding, but, as they too have to take very difficult decisions on how to make savings, it is important that we remind them that community safety is one of their statutory responsibilities, and that the partnership work that we have seen between local authorities and the police locally has helped to make communities safer and must continue.

As local authorities consider how to achieve those aims, we want to ensure that local partnerships have a purpose, that they are non-bureaucratic and that they do not waste time. They should not simply involve meetings between council officials and police officers; they should be places of real action-orientated policing, with a strong focus on preventing crime and all the measures that we know to be successful, particularly in youth services.

I pay tribute to the West Midlands police and its partners in the community safety partnership for their work in tackling youth crime and violence in Birmingham. Birmingham has worked closely with the Government on a number of programmes to tackle youth crime and violence, and the city pioneered the use of civil injunctions to tackle gang violence, an approach that was subsequently enshrined in law and will go live on 31 January. This year the Home Office will provide Birmingham with £350,000 for work to tackle youth crime, in addition to £85,000 for work to tackle youth violence. So we are doing what we can.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the people who work in Birmingham and elsewhere to prevent and tackle youth crime and violence: local communities, police officers, police community support officers, youth offending teams and others. The Government’s aspirations for policing in the west midlands are the same. The chief constable could not have put it better when he said on 11 January:

“My task is to protect delivery at all costs, to protect the frontline, to protect neighbourhood teams which have been such a success, to keep our ability to deliver the policing people want.”

We share that ambition.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the effects on the size of the prison population of implementation of the provisions of the Drugs Act 2005.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

We have not recently discussed this specific point, but both the Government’s sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper and their drug strategy include commitments to encourage drug-misusing offenders into recovery-based treatment.

[Paul Flynn]

Jailing drug offenders costs taxpayers half a billion pounds a year—£41,000 per prisoner. As health treatments are far better value and more effective, would not it be more sensible to treat drug addicts as patients, not as criminals?

[Nick Herbert]

It may be more sensible in many cases. That is why we said in the Green Paper that we published before Christmas that we would test options for intensive community-based treatment—both residential and non-residential—and couple that with more rigorous community orders. It is important to have a punitive element for offending as well. The goal should be to ensure that offenders get off drugs, but too often that is not the case.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new drug strategy represents a significant shift from the present treatment system, which is characterised by repetitive assessments and conflicting funding streams, to one of payment by results—those results being the number not of boxes ticked but of addicts in recovery beyond the prison gates?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree: we do have a problem at the moment. A recent study showed that nearly a fifth of offenders in prison who had ever tried heroin had tried it for the first time in prison. In some cases, offenders get on to drugs, and we also have a problem with treatments, with drug rehabilitation requirements that are not completed. We have to get more rigour into drug treatment. That is why the payment-by-results model that we will pilot to get offenders off drugs, for both community orders and post-release treatment, is such an attractive way forward.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

2. What definition of a long-term custodial sentence his Department uses.

--- Later in debate ---

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

13. What recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

We continue to commission research and evaluation on that important subject. We have just commissioned an evaluation of the Peterborough social impact bond. We have also recently published the evidence report on the Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, in which we reviewed and evaluated a large volume of research.

[Tom Brake]

Voluntary sector organisations such as Nacro and St Giles Trust play a significant role in delivering services to offenders, and in providing related research and evaluation. As we move towards payment by results and outcome-based commissioning, which is taking precedence in the voluntary sector, what role does the Minister envisage for voluntary sector-related research and evaluation?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the voluntary sector in helping us reduce reoffending. The great advantage of payment by results, which we will pilot for community orders and post-release supervision of offenders, is that the providers make the evaluation and take the risk, and we will pay for what works. That is different from the situation until now, whereby Ministers backed projects without necessarily knowing whether they worked in reducing reoffending.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I urge the Minister to take an urgent look at the ongoing evaluation of the Choose Change project at Manchester prison and the intensive alternative to custody pilot, which Manchester probation service is running as part of a national scheme. I visited both yesterday and they seemed very effective and in line with the Minister’s objectives, yet they face financial uncertainty. Will he see what he can do?

[Nick Herbert]

I would be happy to look at those projects. Our aim, assuming that the pilots are successful, is for all such schemes to be paid for by results. If they work, they will receive the funding. In spite of the prison population’s reaching record levels and despite funding, reoffending rates have risen. We therefore need to institute a new system, whereby we pay for what works.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of mental health care for offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of the case involving six defendants that was dropped yesterday, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a lot of disquiet about the crossing of the line from a police constable going undercover for seven years and his inciting illegal action? Would it not be appropriate for a senior Minister, be it him or the Home Secretary, to make a statement to the House? As I have said, there is a good deal of concern and disquiet about what has occurred.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

These are, of course, operational matters for the police. I understand that there is to be an investigation into what appears to have been a lack of proper supervision of the officer concerned, but undercover operations are immensely important across a range of criminal activities, in keeping the public safe.

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

T6. With the Government’s announcement of the Green Paper, and their intention to cut prison numbers and strengthen community sentences, will the Minister outline to the House his plans for the role of the probation service and probation trusts, given that those two organisations are likely to have a vastly increased work load as a result of the policy?

Justice

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Ainsworth]

24. To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those serving a prison sentence have been treated for heroin addiction.

[Official Report, 23 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 287W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on 23 November 2010. Unfortunately, the answer contained an error relating to the number of heroin users (4,933) that have entered accredited drug treatment programmes in 2009-10. The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Herbert]

Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,933 heroin users entered accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.

The correct answer should have been:

[Nick Herbert]

Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,633 heroin users entered accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.

National Probation Service: Manpower

[Lisa Nandy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many probation service employees of each grade there were in probation areas on 31 December (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008 and (d) 2009; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 25 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 456-58W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 25 November 2010. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the locally purchased extract tool not extracting all of the staff in post figures; in Teesside it excluded one team; in Durham it did not identify when hours of work, and therefore full-time equivalence (FTE), had changed slightly. Therefore, some of the staff in post figures provided for Teesside and Durham within the national figures for December 2009 were incorrect. The full answer given was as follows: