Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.

The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:

“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s response on this serious issue. I do not know whether he saw the Chair of that Committee’s summary of what was in the report, in which she said that what the Government had brought forward was “woefully inadequate”. She said that unless we have a measure that deals effectively with prevention, we will not tackle the problem at its source. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the introduction of dog control notices, what the Government propose is indeed woefully inadequate?

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that sensible view on the record. Of course, I am sympathetic to it. Indeed, I will add another sensible view, that of the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said:

“We remain unconvinced that CPNs will fulfil the same purpose as bespoke Dog Control Notices.”

I could go on to read the evidence to the Bill Committee of organisation after organisation: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, police and crime commissioners, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Although that would support my argument, I fear that a lengthy recitation would weary the House. However, two further sources of support for dog control notices are worth drawing to the House’s attention.

First, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) helpfully drew the Bill Committee’s attention to the fact that before the general election, the Conservative party pledged to give police and councils more power to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs through the introduction of dog control notices. As it happens, the same is true of the Liberal Democrats, who also supported such notices when in opposition. We are used to the policies of one or other Government party being lost in coalition fudges, but I am not aware of a policy supported by both parties being lost in such a way. On this occasion, not only do I agree with Nick, but I am willing to agree with Dave as well. If we all agree, for goodness’ sake let us act and bring in long-overdue and much-needed tough but fair measures to deal with dangerous dogs. Six thousand hospitalisations a year is too many simply to look the other way. I would challenge any Member to sit down with Michael Anderson, Jade’s father, as I did yesterday, and not conclude that the measures that we suggest must be on the statute book.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who is in her place, for tabling new clause 6, which is similar to new clause 3 in many ways. It highlights her commitment to bringing her constituency issues to the House in the most powerful way possible.

New clauses 17, 29 and 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), were mentioned earlier. They include a number of further sensible and proportionate measures to deal with dangerous dogs, and I am sure that Members of the other place will want to study them carefully in their less time-pressured environment and take up many of them.

I must push the Minister to accept new clause 3. To date, the Bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government. The need for tougher action is clear and well evidenced, and the desire to act has been endorsed not just by the parties of government before the last election but by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and by every major organisation that deals with dangerous dogs, animal welfare and irresponsible owners. The means to act are now before the Minister, and I urge him to take the chance to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

It is important that the Government consult carefully on all these things. We do not want to intrude too much into the realm of private property and what people are allowed to do with their dogs in their property, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is well made.

I ask the Minister to consider carefully the campaign by Naturewatch, which is based in my constituency and led me to table early-day motion 412 to address the issues of irresponsible breeders and the need to regulate the advertising and selling of pets. That could be the next important step that the Government take in their rather gradualist approach to the issue. In many ways, that is one of the root causes of the phenomenon of dangerous and trophy dogs and dogs used as weapons.

For now, however, we should congratulate the Government on taking some important steps to tackle the issue. The steps we are voting on today will help to save lives. They will potentially save the lives of children like poor Jade Anderson and the lives of adults. They will certainly save the lives of pets. Those steps are overwhelmingly to be welcomed.

[Luciana Berger]

In November four years ago, my constituent, John Paul Massey, was killed by a dog in Wavertree. He was four. It happened during the run-up to the general election. I remember the impact that his death had not only on his family and their friends but on the wider community. To this day, I have people who come to talk to me about the experience of that happening in our community and how it has impacted on them, even though they may just have been a neighbour or someone who lived in a neighbouring street. It is not just John Paul Massey who tragically lost his life. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many other victims. One life lost because of a dog is one life too many. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.

I am going to echo many of the comments made by hon. Friends and Members on the Government Benches. I notice that there are people present who have been long-standing campaigners on the issue for far longer than I have following my election in May 2010. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for the hard work that she has done for so many more years than I have on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has been affected in more recent times. We have heard the worst examples and seen evidence in newspapers and on television of the most tragic injuries and of people who are permanently disfigured. As we have heard, every year, thousands of people are hospitalised. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are attacked by a dog and may not present themselves to the NHS. For many of those people, there are long-term psychological consequences. For people on the front line who go into homes, be they social workers, BT workers, meter readers or energy company staff, such attacks can have a long-term impact on their ability to work.

As we have heard, the attacks come at a great cost. The estimates that we have are very conservative. There is a cost of £10 million a year to the NHS. That should cause any Government concern. Equally, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) said, people who are visually impaired will be affected if their guide dog is attacked. I do not think that enough of us know—I learned this only recently—that it costs £50,000 to train and look after a guide dog over its lifetime. That is all charitable money. If a guide dog is attacked by a dog, not only will there be a cost and long-term consequences for the guide dog, but the owner, who has spent time bonding with the guide dog and has depended on it, will no longer have a friend. That can also have long-term consequences.

I support new clause 3, which is in my name and that of many hon. Friends, because I share the criticism by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Although I welcome what the Government have done on the issue, the clear message that I have heard from professionals in the field is that we should prevent dog attacks from happening in the first place.

I have listened very closely to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House, in particular those on the Government Benches who spoke in support of what the Government have come forward with thus far. I have also looked very closely at the community protection notices and I have listened to the professionals who know far better than I do how this will operate in practice, and I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, too, but I have strong concerns. As it stands, CPNs are very bureaucratic and practitioners will need a lot of time and resource to implement them. They will not sufficiently address dog behaviour and welfare. That is, essentially, what all of us here are talking about today. There are also concerns that the CPN will come too late, because the dog owner must be served with a written warning before they can be issued with a CPN.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support the Government’s gradualist and sensible approach and I urge the Minister to resist new clause 3. We all regret and are desperately unhappy about vicious attacks by dogs, particularly on children—although also on anybody else—and if legislation could solve that problem and new clause 3 could deal with it without causing massive potential inconvenience to millions of peaceable people who own dogs, I would be in favour of it. However, like all such amendments, it would probably, sadly, do little to control the vicious people who use dogs as weapons and it could impact severely on millions of ordinary, peaceable dog owners.

I declare an interest because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a dog owner. My dog, a little border terrier called William, is a lot smaller than yours. I saw yours in the Westminster dog show last year and many people think that your breed of dog is quite powerful, but I know from having witnessed your dog that it is well brought up and peaceable.

Let us be sensible about this. I know that new clause 3 is well intentioned, but it could have draconian effects. All it states is:

“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control”.

It requires a reasonable belief—that is not probability. We all know that there are disputes between neighbours, or that people have rows with other people. That is such a small bar to get over for an “authorised officer”.

[Luciana Berger]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better not give way, because I do not want Mr Deputy Speaker to set his dogs of war on me. I shall be very brief and will not take any interventions.

Let me make a simple point. Who is this “authorised officer”? What is this “reasonable cause”? Simply because that officer of the state has some sort of belief, which might have been motivated by other people, the dog might have to be muzzled, neutered or prevented from going in particular places. I am very worried about that.

I am also very worried about the other amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was talking about 14-year sentences. It was in the papers last year that somebody had driven their car dangerously and killed somebody while they were looking at their global positioning system device. They did not look out of the window for 18 seconds and they killed a cyclist, and they went to prison for three years. We all think that is ridiculous. Are we really going to send someone to prison for 14 years for this offence?

Let us be honest about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be guard dogs. Even my pathetic little border terrier, William, barks when people come up the garden path. That is what dogs are bred to do. All this nonsense about Liberal party canvassers who are scared of getting their fingers bitten when they put a leaflet through the door—I have delivered thousands of useless Conservative party pamphlets through the door. When I see a dog behind the door, I am delighted not to put the pamphlet through the letterbox. Just show some common sense. Dogs are dogs. We cannot change dogs with legislation.

New clause 3 is just one extra bit of legislation that will not impact on the people who really cause trouble, but will, as I said, impact on millions of dog owners. We should be calm, take a gradualist approach and support what the Government are doing.

[Norman Baker]

We have had a good wide-ranging debate. In the time left available to me, I will try as always to address the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the individual Members who have raised points and have not had those addressed as part of my response.

Let me say first that we are very sympathetic to the calls from many people for an increase in the maximum penalty for a dog attack. The Government agrees that two years’ imprisonment is not a sufficient penalty for the devastation and damage that a serious dog attack can do. There were over 3,000 responses to the consultation, and although there was strong support for an increased maximum penalty, there was no consensus as to where to set the bar. Given the volume of responses, I regret that it has not been possible for the Department to conclude its consideration of the issue in time to table a Government amendment on Report, but I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that the Government will table an amendment to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks when the Bill is in the other place. The response to the consultation on changes will, I can assure the shadow Minister, be published in good time to inform the debates on the issue in the other place.

The Government amendment will reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that some 16 adults and children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As the consultation made clear, we will be looking to distinguish between attacks on people and attacks on assistance dogs. For attacks on people and where a person is killed or seriously injured, I am attracted—perhaps given my former role as a Transport Minister—by the comparison with penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Where a dog attacks an assistance dog, we will be looking at a lower maximum penalty, but one that is higher than the present one that applies.

I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that some people are breeding dogs deliberately to use as weapons. It is under those circumstances that higher penalties would be applicable. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given on this matter, and the commitment that I am giving to a Government amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will not press his amendments today.

New clauses 3, 6, 17, 18 and 19 deal with dog control notices, dog number control notices and the requirement for all households with a dog to fit letterbox guards. I understand the intentions of hon. Members who tabled these amendments. There is a genuine need for an additional tool to address poor dog ownership and to enable early action to prevent dog bites and attacks. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who sought to take matters forward with her new clause 18. Every day thousands of postal workers and others, including those who deliver political literature, face uncertainty and apprehension as they approach houses with dogs to deliver mail and so on. The Government believe that such individuals must be able to go about their duties without fear of injury.

It is paramount for local officers from the police or the local council to have at their disposal the right tools so that they may take action in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. But as was made clear when the issue was raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, the measures in parts 1 to 4 introduce powers that will allow exactly the type of early intervention that the new clauses seek to provide.

Those measures can address all types of such irresponsible behaviour with a dog, regardless of the specific manifestation. For example, a community protection notice can be served in cases where there are too many dogs in one home—the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—where an owner does not have proper control of his or her dog, where a dog strays and in many other scenarios. Those measures are in addition to existing statutory measures, notably offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to welfare standards, the law on statutory nuisance and, for commercial dog breeders, any licence requirements.

I want to reassure Members—this is an important point—that all the requirements they suggest under new clauses 3 and 6, such as muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead, attending training classes, fitting a letterbox guard to the door of a property and seeking expert advice, can be required under a community protection notice. The new clauses, although well intentioned, are simply not necessary. The powers are already there in the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, that is how the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifesto commitments are being delivered.

[Luciana Berger]

Will the Minister acknowledge that, as the legislation is currently drafted, individuals will still require a written warning before they can receive a community protection notice, which will add delays? Who knows what could happen during the intervening period?

[Norman Baker]

I want to address that point. Only this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioners’ manual—it is a draft because we are inviting comments on it—entitled, “Tackling irresponsible dog ownership”. It gives an example on page 15. If a dog is out of control in a park, a written notice can be issued on the spot by the relevant officer who has control in that situation. The owner would then be given a “reasonable time”, which might be just five minutes, to respond. If the dog is not brought under control in that time, the community protection notice can be issued right away. I do not understand why the Opposition think that there could be huge delays in the process, because there could not. It is a simple piece of legislation to make it effective and quick, and that relates to the issues to which attention is rightly being drawn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. We are looking across the legal aid and legal services world at ways to improve cash flows, where appropriate by providing interim payments to barristers and solicitors, and we have invited ideas from all parts of the profession on how best to do that. Even if we have to take tough overall financial decisions, I am keen to ensure that we ease cash flow challenges, which are a regular complaint from lawyers.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the large number of local black, Asian and minority ethnic legal firms, including in Liverpool, why has no equality impact assessment been undertaken on the Government’s plans for legal aid?

[Chris Grayling]

We have done equality work, and the changes announced in September will mean that there should be no reason for any BAME specialist firm to have to change what it does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Given that I do not have the time at the Dispatch Box that I might choose to discuss the matter, I would simply say that the European Commission’s recent decision to publish a justice scorecard assessing justice systems across Europe, and making recommendations for their improvement, is one that this country neither welcomes nor intends to co-operate with.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on miscarriages of justice of his proposals on criminal legal aid?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very confident that what we are doing, which involves encouraging the litigation part of our system to operate more efficiently and making changes to the top end of the income scale for the Bar, but also protecting incomes for the junior Bar, will be the best way of delivering an effective balance between proper justice and something that is affordable to the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I absolutely agree, and the two important points are, first, that local councils prioritise that issue—we all know that the economic climate is tough, but they have had a fantastic launch pad through London 2012 and it is now up to them to make it work. Secondly, councils will need the support of local volunteers. I am delighted to add my congratulations to the people mentioned by my hon. Friend.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened closely to what the Minister said about local authorities, but in Liverpool, which has seen a £252 cut per head, it is challenging for the local authority to make such decisions to prioritise sport and to have that investment available. What will the Government do to help councils that have seen such drastic cuts to ensure that sporting facilities, particularly local clubs, are supported?

[Hugh Robertson]

Nobody would pretend that this issue is easy and we all know the economic conditions. As I said, London 2012 has given sport in this country a fantastic launch pad, and a city such a Liverpool—which the hon. Lady represents—is synonymous with sport. My advice would be that the most successful projects I have seen are a combination of local authority funding, private funding and grants from Sport England. If the hon. Lady has projects that she wishes to promote, she should look to Sport England and the Places People Play initiative and see what she can do. I wish her every good fortune in doing that.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We will do everything we can to do that. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, is looking very hard at the whole issue of how we manage drugs in prisons and the nature of such rehabilitation. As a result of these reforms, I hope that we will end up not only dealing with the question of retoxification but identifying problems, starting rehab in prison and continuing it post-prison, and getting prisoners off drugs altogether.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some parallels have been drawn between this plan and the Work programme. One of the problems with the Work programme is that minimal information is available from some of the private providers, and they are not subject to freedom of information requests. How will this be different?

[Chris Grayling]

I am working on reforms to FOI at the moment. We will try to be as transparent as possible. The hon. Lady has to remember, although she is not guilty of this, that over the past couple of years I have been regularly attacked by Labour Members about the use of national statistics. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand the information in advance and then want me to conform to national statistics rules. We will publish data as soon as we are able to do so, under the guidance of our statisticians, and we will be as transparent as possible over all this.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Short of reading again what I have just said, that is what we are doing. The Select Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, is conducting an investigation. It has not published its final report, but when it does so the Government will look at it and all the matters it raises seriously.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says that the IPCC has asked for two powers that are contained in the Bill. What conversations has he had with the IPCC since the Bill was published about anything that is missing? He says he has had conversations with chief officers, specifically on sanctions. What conversations has he had with the IPCC about sanctions?

[Damian Green]

I have had extensive conversations with the IPCC. I have seen its briefing to Members, which led to the all-party group amendment. I have specifically discussed sanctions with the IPCC. As I have said in more general terms, if there is a need to widen the IPCC’s powers the Government will look at it with an open mind and with a view to legislation, but it is sensible to await the Select Committee report before committing ourselves in any detail. It will be for the IPCC to investigate whether individuals involved on the day should face misconduct or criminal proceedings; we must ensure it has the powers it needs. The IPCC has been clear: that fully to investigate the terrible events of 15 April 1989 it needs to hear the testimony of officers involved on the day and in subsequent investigations.

Criminal Justice System

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I want to add to his comments about the concern that so many people outside this place feel about the Government’s plans for the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I want to ask him about a particular point in the plans that we saw before and about the fears that people have regarding any new plans. The Government intended to withdraw compensation from anyone attacked by a dog. In my constituency, I meet many constituents who have been attacked by a dog; we suffered the death of a child in my constituency because of a dangerous dog. Last year alone, we saw a 5% increase in the number of people being hospitalised because of dangerous dog attacks: just under 6,500 people were admitted to hospital last year, of whom one in six was a child. Does my hon. Friend share my view that if the Government again bring forward a proposal in this area, after all the concerns that have been raised, people should still continue to receive compensation if they are attacked by a dog?

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is right. Dog attacks are clearly a major concern for groups such as people who work for the Royal Mail. Like the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Communication Workers Union has campaigned strongly on the issue.

As I said earlier, I was present when my daughter’s dog was attacked recently. In that particular case, I actually had to attack the dog. It struck me at the time that it was a rather unpleasant dog, and if it had attacked me, I might have suffered a little, but if it had attacked a child, the child might have suffered considerably. Compensation is a really serious issue.

I want to make a few other points. As we consider what we can do for victims, I would be grateful to the Minister if she could look at the role of Victim Support. Most of us who have experience of its work know that it provides an enormously valuable service. It deals with more than 1 million victims of crime every year, of whom some 80,000 are victims of violent crime and some 8,000 are victims of sexual assault. It also trains some 7,000 people each year.

There is a genuine concern at the moment among those who work for Victim Support, both nationally and in my own area, about the changes that the Government are making to funding. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage, as a candidate for the role of police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. The Minister may be surprised to know that although the transfer to police commissioners will go ahead, there is concern among people from all parties who are standing to be police and crime commissioners about whether the transfer will be fully funded, with full transfer of Victim Support moneys, so that there is no loss of its services. It is important that we have clarity about that issue, because any loss of funding would not only be unfair to those who become commissioners but—much more importantly—it would be unfair to victims if those services were no longer there. We need some clarification about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There is an ongoing programme to rationalise the estate across the MOJ, as there is across Government. We should always look to maximise the utilisation of public sector office space, and we will continue to do so.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State shed more light on reports in the press today that the Government are seeking to change the definition of domestic violence?

[Chris Grayling]

That matter is being dealt with by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office. We are continuing to review it. We regard domestic violence as a particularly serious offence. It does untold damage to the lives of women. The Government will continue to work to find ways of reducing the likelihood of people suffering from domestic violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The sense of my outrage on behalf of the system and the officials at the mess that we have had to clear up is perfectly clear to the House, Mr Speaker.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What progress he has made on his proposals to reform the probation system.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

On 27 March, in the consultation document “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, the Government published proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services. Alongside that, we published proposals to deliver more credible and effective community sentences. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation, which closed on 22 June. We intend to publish the Government response later in the year.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Under a marketisation of the probation service, how can he assure the House that fragmentation of the service will not put the public at risk? What safeguards are in place to ensure that cherry-picking by private sector providers of individuals on probation does not occur?

[Mr Clarke]

I am somewhat astonished by the reaction of some Opposition Members. We are following the policy first laid out in the Offender Management Act 2007. The probation trusts have now all been set up and we are introducing principles to bring some competition and diversity of provider. There are very good people who can provide some aspects of the probation service. We believe that that will both enhance the quality of the service and achieve better value for money and better outcomes. Plenty of people in the probation service welcome our proposals; indeed, some are surprised by their modesty.

Police

Baroness Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, especially as cuts in policing will impact so greatly on my constituents. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) about how Merseyside police force is heavily reliant on funding from central Government, and I shall reiterate some of the important points that he made.

Some 82% of the force’s budget comes from the formula grant. Only the City of London, Northumbria and West Midlands forces are more reliant on formula grant funding. Can the Minister explain to the people of Liverpool why the real-terms percentage cut facing Merseyside in the 2011-12 financial year is 5.8%, while Surrey— which receives only 51% of its funding from central Government—is receiving a cut of just 3.7% in real terms?

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said to the Liverpool Echo on October 15 last year:

“The priority is...helping police officers working on the front line.”

Merseyside police chief constable, Jon Murphy, has said that his force is doing, and will do, everything it can to maintain front-line policing. In fact, since 2004 Merseyside police have made maximising police numbers on the streets a priority. As a result of rigorous efficiency savings, which have been recognised nationally by the Department, and reinvestment in frontline policing, Merseyside police have increased police numbers by hundreds of officers. But we are very concerned that the Government have made no allowances for the extensive efficiency savings already made, before cutting the formula grant so harshly. It will now be impossible to maintain front-line police levels when Merseyside police will see real-terms funding cuts of 7% in 2011-12 and 8.8% in 2012-13.

Merseyside police are having to cut 200 police officers and 80 police staff by March of this year. In addition, a moratorium on police recruitment is continuing until 2012, and this will result in roughly another 200 police officers going in that financial year. That means that Merseyside police will lose close to 10% of its police officers by March 2012. Tough choices have already had to be made, including the closure of the dedicated antisocial behaviour unit.

To substantiate those savage cuts, the Policing Minster has said that there is no simple link between police numbers and crime levels. However, I would like to bring to his attention a number of studies that contradict that. A study of crime rates and police numbers across Europe published on 7 January by the think-tank Civitas—I mention Civitas because it is a think-tank that the Government are normally inclined to listen to—suggests that there is indeed a clear link. Using the most recent data from the “European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics”, Civitas compared the number of police officers per 100,000 of the population and recorded offences per 100,000 of the population. Civitas said that the data suggest

“an association between police officers per head of population and crimes per head. A nation with a larger proportion of police officers is somewhat more likely to have a lower crime rate. A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”

However, that is not the only study to suggest such a link.

[Tom Brake]

Is it not also true, however, that the Civitas report says:

“police numbers and resources are far from the only contributor to police effectiveness”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

Having spent a lot of time meeting the Merseyside police authority, I know that the vast proportion of its funding is taken up by staffing costs, which are a massive element. I accept that other factors can contribute to efficiency savings, but when such a high proportion of the funding goes on staffing, there are only so many efficiency savings that can be made. Indeed, a number of other studies have confirmed the link. A study published in The British Journal of Criminology in 1999, a 2005 study by the university of Cambridge and, more recently, a study last year by the university of Birmingham all evidenced the link between higher policing levels and lower crime rates. Civitas concluded by saying:

“Members of the public are at greater risk of crime in the coming year.”

I know that it is not just academics who are deeply concerned about the effect that the cuts will have, because my constituents have told me that they are, too. I recently conducted a survey in my constituency, and was astounded by the number of responses that I received—more than 800. Some 77% of those respondents told me that they were concerned about the effect that a reduction in police numbers would have on the policing of their neighbourhoods. The Minister might not see a simple link between the cuts and people’s safety in their communities, but I do, and most importantly, so do my constituents. It is time the Minister came clean and admitted what we all know: that these reckless cuts will take police off our streets and make our communities less safe. I urge him to think again.