Investigatory Powers Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Exactly. It is an inhibition, and I presume that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister would take that extreme step only because they were convinced that this was a matter of national security. Before they took such a step, which we all agree is serious, would it do any harm to consult somebody who is obviously completely separated from politics?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Is there not an issue of accountability here? If the judgment is wrong, would it not be extremely regrettable for the Speaker to be dragged into the court of public opinion as someone who got that judgment wrong, as opposed to the Executive or the Prime Minister who could properly be hauled over the coals?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I understand that example, but it can be taken to extremes. Every day of the week the Speaker makes decisions. He decides how we conduct our business and who should be called, and we could always argue that we should not give the Speaker more powers because he might make a mistake or be called to account. We are not talking about the Speaker being involved in whether we should pass a particular Bill or controversy; we are talking about a very narrow circumstance in which the Government of the day have decided to intercept the communications of a Member of Parliament. All I am suggesting is that before they take that step, they consult the Speaker.

UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

That is absolutely true. This is an unenviable task for anyone who is involved in such investigations.

I do not pretend to have the answers, but let me draw the attention of the House and the Minister to an issue that I think needs careful thought. Given the existence of social media and cheap international flights, it has never been easier for individuals to make contact, to be recruited, and to travel to conflict zones. It might be thought that in this modern age when we are all mollycoddled, people would not dream of doing something of this kind, but people are doing it, and it is becoming easier and easier to do.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government and law enforcement agencies to send the clear, consistent and credible message that those who decide to go abroad and risk their lives run a very real risk of prosecution when they return? Would that not constitute a powerful disincentive?

[Robert Jenrick]

I could not agree more.

Most of these individuals—certainly most of those whom I have met—are doing this for what they believe to be good reasons. Most are braver men and women than you or I. However, doing this carries great risks, beyond the risk of being killed, captured or ransomed: the risks involved in being caught fighting with a group that is viewed by some as a terrorist organisation. Even if it is not, people will still be arrested, and that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives.

The Government need a considered and consistent policy, which they do not appear to have today. They need a policy that discourages British citizens from taking such risks, which ensures that, whenever possible, they are advised of their likely legal status on their return, and which, above all, treats these brave men fairly and appropriately when they do come home.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, we are doing that. We are looking to see what more we can do to enhance our ability to deal with terrorists’ funding. The UN came together last year, when Finance Ministers from 70 countries met for the first time, to look at the financing of serious crime and terrorism and to see what more action could be taken globally.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Within moments of these atrocities, constituents of mine at GCHQ will have deployed resources to assist their Belgian counterparts. GCHQ is a vital and unique capability. Can the House be assured that it will continue to have the resources it needs to meet what is, regrettably, a growing workload?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people at GCHQ will have responded in support of the authorities in Belgium. Day in, day out, they work to keep us safe and are a vital part of the security and intelligence agency and law enforcement response in the UK. GCHQ is world leading and respected around the world, and long may it continue.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

No, I think the politician’s personal feelings are wholly irrelevant. They are responsible to the public and the House and have to report on those decisions, and it is they who should be exclusively responsible for these very difficult, subjective decisions.

During my time, I had real respect for the thoroughness with which warrants were prepared, but on occasion I refused them, and there was a clear decision-making procedure. I was also acutely aware that my decisions would be subject to review after the event, and I respected the review process. As shadow Secretary of State, I spent three years visiting Northern Ireland every week, and I built up a level of knowledge that was really useful when I took over as Secretary of State. Some decisions had to be made in imperfect conditions with imperfect information. That is the nature of working with intelligence to protect the public. A decision sometimes required a personal judgment about what was in the public interest, not just a legal interpretation.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) was a fair one: it is very difficult for the House properly to scrutinise what was the thought process and evidence base because so much of it will be considered in the national interest and so will not be transparent to us in the Chamber?

[Mr Paterson]

No, I was fully aware that I had to come regularly to the House to answer questions and that I could be called before the Select Committee. There were various methods by which the House could scrutinise my decisions.

The key thing is that the public demand for more scrutiny, which I fully appreciate, should not interfere with operational agility and thereby put the public at risk. The current system works and could, with amendments, offer much greater scrutiny. I am in favour of a more rigorous and rapid review process. The proposal in the Bill is that a warrant could be issued in emergencies but would be reviewed within three days. This could be made applicable to all warrants, and I would welcome that, but other practical and operational issues do not appear to have been considered.

It is not clear in the Bill what the procedure would be should a commissioner refuse a decision by the Secretary of State. There is potential for even further delay and confusion in clause 21(5), under which the Secretary of State may go to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Under the current arrangement, it is quite clear who is responsible: the Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament. Under the proposed system, with possible delays and divided decision making, it is not clear who is ultimately responsible should something go horribly wrong, with devastating consequences for the public. Should a terrorist operation be tragically successful because of delay and differences of opinion under the proposed dual lock, who would be legally responsible? Who would the relatives hold to account and potentially sue? The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House of Commons, but to whom will the judicial commissioners and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner ultimately be accountable?

The impossible position in which distinguished lawyers will be placed is highlighted in clause 196(5) and (6). Lawyers and judges are trained to interpret the law meticulously, but these subsections require very subjective political decisions. Subsection (5) provides:

“In exercising functions under this Act, a Judicial Commissioner must not act in a way…contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to…(a) national security, (b) the prevention or detection of serious crime, or (c) the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

Subsection (6) reads:

“A Judicial Commissioner must, in particular, ensure that the Commissioner does not…(a) jeopardise the success of an intelligence or security operation or a law enforcement operation, (b) compromise the safety or security of those involved, or (c) unduly impede the operational effectiveness of an intelligence service, a police force, a government department or Her Majesty’s forces.”

No law book can possibly guide a distinguished lawyer on these questions, which ultimately require a political judgment. In order for these criteria to be met, the Secretary of State should clearly be accountable here, in order to guarantee our security services’ operational agility and the ability to react swiftly and at short notice.

According to the principle of the separation of powers, it is clear that lawyers should not make operational executive decisions that might require some personal judgment. Montesquieu himself said:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty…Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive”.

Lawyers should be brought in after the decision, in order to review the process by which the decision was arrived at. The Bill effectively brings judges into the Executive, giving them the difficult role of being both scrutineers and Executive decision makers. These roles require very different skills, and according to the separation of powers, they should be kept separate for good reason.

The further important deep flaw in the Bill applies particularly to Northern Ireland. It was illustrated in a high-profile case last October when members of the notorious Duffy family were accused of a number of terrorist offences arising out of a security services surveillance operation. The trial collapsed when the judge ordered disclosure of the tracking devices, and the case has been strongly made that as a result of this trial’s collapse, the public are at risk because of a judge’s insistence on total transparency procedure. In practical terms, this is unworkable in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland. The demand for transparent disclosure of the technology used, as required by this judge, would have compromised the methodology that keeps the public safe. It would also have educated terrorists on how to avoid detection in the future.

I am concerned, too, about clause 194(3)(e), which requires the Prime Minister to consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister before appointing an Investigatory Powers Commissioner or a judicial commissioner. I was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have responsibility, following the devolution of justice and policing to local politicians, and it was always clearly understood that the Secretary of State maintained responsibility for matters of national security; the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services reported to him on those matters.

I draw the attention of Ministers to the wise words of the Joint Committee, when it said:

“We are aware that particular sensitivities around these issues may apply in Northern Ireland. The Government will need to reflect on these sensitivities as this legislation progresses.”

That can be found in paragraph 419. Will the Government please commit to that?

Sadly, very few Members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords have direct experience of this issue. Law-abiding British citizens are under threat from dangerous terrorists every day. I am acutely aware that deaths and injuries have been prevented not just thanks to the supreme professionalism of our security services, but thanks to the current swift decision-making process, which gives them critical operational agility. It will be tragic if this is lost because so few Members of Parliament understand the very real benefits of the current process. I am therefore opposed to the dual lock proposals in the Bill, and I hope they will be removed in Committee. The signing of warrants should remain the exclusive responsibility of the Secretary of State, accountable to Parliament, and the review process by distinguished members of the judiciary should be carried out sooner, more frequently and more thoroughly after the decision has been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Striking the right balance between liberty and security is one of the most difficult judgments we have to make as a society. Anyone who has prosecuted and defended in our criminal courts—I see several here—well understands the tension that exists between the need to protect the public from harm and preserving our precious individual freedoms. This is therefore an immensely difficult issue, and if we get it wrong, the consequences are indeed serious. But the fact that we are able to approach this Bill in a calm atmosphere, and not against a backdrop of the panic and emotion of a recent outrage, is in no small part due to the constituents of mine working at GCHQ. Their quiet, brilliant work saves lives. They avoid the limelight and do not seek our thanks, but we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.

It would be a great mistake for calmness to give way to complacency, as serious plots are thwarted with alarming regularity. Before I came to this place, I was part of the team that prosecuted five young British jihadis who had travelled from Birmingham to Dewsbury intending to detonate an improvised explosive device filled with nails at a public rally. Had the plot succeeded, the potential for carnage would have been horrifying, and I have no doubt that we would be experiencing the repercussions today.

In my experience, the people in the intelligence agencies I have met, both as a barrister prosecuting terrorism offences and since my election, are scrupulous about remaining within the law. That means we have a covenant with them. We must provide them with a piece of legislation that gives them the tools to keep us safe, but we also owe it to them to create a framework containing the safeguards needed to command public confidence—nothing less than that will do. I believe that this Bill gets that balance broadly right and it deserves a Second Reading. That judgment has been possible because the Government have listened carefully and responded in appropriate detail to the legitimate concerns raised by the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. However, valid points have been raised today, for example on whether we ought further to limit the pool of agencies to which ICRs can be available, and on the threshold for the type and seriousness of criminality that ought to trigger their use. Those legitimate points have been properly raised, but they can be raised in Committee.

I do not have the time to examine more than a fraction of what this Bill contains, but I wish to say a few words about bulk powers. The bulk data powers in the Bill are not new. The law today has long allowed the security and intelligence agencies to acquire bulk data under RIPA and so on. Those powers underpin a significant proportion of what our security services already do.

[Joanna Cherry]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at the time the Act he has just mentioned was passed, bulk powers were not in people’s contemplation? Therefore, although that Act may have been retrospectively interpreted to cover bulk powers, they have never before been debated or voted on by this House.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right about that, but what is important about this Bill is that it shines a light on precisely those powers: it clarifies and consolidates them; it unifies them into a single document; and, crucially, it strengthens the safeguards that govern the security and intelligence agencies’ use of them. That is precisely why this legislation is so important. Crucially, in future, warrants for bulk powers will need to be authorised by a Secretary of State and approved by a judicial commissioner, which means we can be satisfied that those powers will be issued only where it is both necessary and proportionate to do so. Each warrant must be clearly justified and balance intrusions into privacy against the expected intelligence benefits.

There is so much to say, but time is limited. The upshot is that this Bill is not the finished article, but it forms the basis of a strong piece of law. I believe it can have as positive an impact as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, by updating and clarifying the law for those having to apply the relevant powers, while strengthening safeguards for those who are subject to them. If we get the detail right, I believe this Bill has the potential to become world-leading legislation. We should give this Bill a Second Reading.

Child Refugees in Europe

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

This is of course an extremely difficult issue, and our hearts go out to the poor children in the Jungle in Calais. But we need to be careful about confusing the clear message of the UK’s aid effort that it is in children’s best interests to remain in the region, where hundreds of millions of pounds of UK aid is available, and not encourage them into the clutches of evil traffickers who frankly do not care if they live or die.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has made his point concisely and well. It is that risk of the exploitation of people traffickers that we have at the forefront of our minds. Equally, social media is being used to sell false hope and false opportunity, putting lives at risk.

Donald Trump

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

It is not for us to try to get into Donald Trump’s mind. However, it is important for Members here to understand what it is like for Muslims in this country when people take comments made by those such as Mr Trump as expressing genuine concerns about those of us who practise the Muslim faith. That is a very uncomfortable place to be in, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts my personal experience in that respect.

Mr Trump condemns my family. In a similar vein, in the ridiculous situation he has created, he condemns the political editor of Sky News, the chief executive of Tate and Lyle, and some of our greatest Olympians. He condemns the leaders of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan for the actions of the very terrorists they are working together to overcome in Iraq and Syria. He does that because we are all Muslims—that, for him, is the one and only common denominator.

Rather than combatting the serious issue of international terrorism, Trump’s statements have bolstered the twisted narrative promoted by the terrorist cult Daesh and others, which pits the west against the Muslim faith. He has fuelled racial tensions across the world, while undermining the national security of the US and the UK. Indeed, in the words of Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook at the time Mr Trump made his statement:

“anything that bolsters ISIL’s narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security”.

Donald Trump threatens not only the national security of our friends in the USA, but our security. Since her appointment in 2010, the Home Secretary has banned hundreds of individuals from the UK. Quite correctly, her job is to protect public safety and to promote our security. She has already explicitly excluded 84 people for hate speech, and she should make Donald Trump No. 85. Using the powers vested in her, she has excluded serious criminals, far-right extremists and homophobic extremists, and the same rules should be applied consistently and equally to all—if we agree they should exist, they should exist for that very reason. We have a responsibility to ensure peace and security, and we should ensure that whoever enters or leaves our country is treated in the same way.

I am proud that the Scottish Government have taken a lead by removing Trump’s status as a GlobalScot ambassador. As for questions about hypocrisy, it is important for me to confirm that that status was bestowed on him by a former Labour Administration, so let any myth about that be dispelled now. However, the same point applies: no genuine person could possibly have envisaged that this man would make such horrendous comments.

The UK Government now need to demonstrate their commitment to promoting religious harmony by applying their own rules consistently in this case. I understand the argument made by some that we should educate Mr Trump and that we should invite him here to see for himself how to build bridges with the Muslim community, rather than putting up barriers. This is a man who seeks to be President of the United States of America, and we think we need to educate him. We should be very worried if a man lacking such education seeks to lead a nation.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but may I suggest that this is actually about buffoonery? Ultimately, buffoonery should be met not with the blunt instrument of a ban, but with the classic British response of ridicule.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

It is within the gift of the British state to deal with Mr Trump in the same manner it has dealt with other people. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr Trump’s buffoonery, but his remarks condemn an entire religion—one that I practise. It may be difficult to understand how that affects people, but it does—Mr Trump is talking about me, my family and my children.

It is worthy of note, however, that Mr Trump’s policy would make it impossible for me or other Muslim friends of America to travel to his country to make the same case that we are making here. Parliament can be extremely proud of the improving record of strong Muslim MPs being elected to both sides of the House to represent their constituents’ interests. However, Mr Trump would ban new Members such as the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) from entering the USA and making their case there.

I have heard others say that applying the rules consistently in Mr Trump’s case would only add to his notoriety and raise his profile. Anyone who has followed the race for the Republican nomination for President will know that lack of profile is not an issue for Mr Trump. The American people have an important decision to make this year about who they want to lead their country. I am sure they will make the right choice, and it is their choice to make.

Last week, Mr Trump added insult to injury by stating that he will withdraw his investment in two Scottish golf courses if he is subject to the same travel restrictions he advocates for others. However, contrary to his own assertions, he is bad for business. It is already clear that the Royal and Ancient will not include Turnberry on the Open rota while it is still owned by Trump, costing the local economy dearly. Furthermore, Mr Trump’s work actively to undermine a vital offshore renewables investment in the North sea may have serious repercussions for Scotland’s development as a world leader in that emerging technology.

Donald Trump has provided succour to terrorists and promoted racial hatred on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course, he has a right to be wrong, but his statements are dangerous, and they threaten our public safety and national security. We cannot have laws that are applied differently, depending on people’s income, public profile, religion or colour. What does that say about us? Our rules and laws must be applied consistently to all. I call on the Home Secretary to apply her judgment consistently in this case, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For her to do anything else would be unprincipled and quite simply wrong.

Healthcare: Yarl’s Wood

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing this important debate. As a longer standing Member of the House, I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have tried so hard to shine a light on the difficulties. I want to mention in particular Sarah Teather, the former Member for Brent Central, who chaired a detention inquiry, on the panel of which I sat, to take evidence from those who had gone through the detention system in this country.

I think the public will be quite surprised by some of the facts that come out of this debate. Each year, some 2,000 asylum-seeking women are locked up in Yarl’s Wood. The majority of them are survivors of sexual violence and rape. Up to 93% of the women detained at Yarl’s Wood claim to have suffered sexual violence of some form, so these are the most vulnerable women that we can think of in circumstances that are far from ideal. Being locked up in detention exacerbates physical and mental health problems, so it is even more important that the health provision should be to a high standard.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should never forget that those who are detained have neither been accused nor convicted of any offence? It is therefore particularly important that they are afforded the high-quality healthcare to which those who have been convicted of no crime are entitled.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I just do not think that the bulk of people in our society have any idea that the UK is the only country in Europe with no time limit on immigration detention and that one can be detained for an indeterminate period without charge. Most people in British society would think that impossible, but we are the only country in Europe that currently does it. My hon. Friend is right that people who are detained indefinitely without charge should not be denied the healthcare they need. That is one of the key reasons why securing this debate was so important.

The detention inquiry that took place in the last Parliament made six important recommendations to Government, one of which I want to reiterate:

“Decisions to detain should be very rare and detention should be for the shortest possible time and only to effect removal.”

Those recommendations were made to the coalition Government and I sincerely hope that the present Government’s Minister will be able to say in his response what the Home Office is doing about those recommendations and the ones being made today.

We have heard about the types of health problems that women suffer from, but I will highlight the high percentage of suffering associated with sexual violence and the plight of pregnant women. Women for Refugee Women, an organisation already referred to, collected evidence from detainees in Yarl’s Wood and, frankly, as a mother it makes my hair stand on end. For example, a woman recently detained while pregnant said that she had only one hospital appointment while in Yarl’s Wood, which was for a scan at 20 weeks—as hon. Members know, that is late for a first scan. Even then she was escorted by officers who brought the lady to her appointment 40 minutes late. How anxious and frustrated she must have felt—even when she was brought to the necessary scan, she was not presented in time and was not able to speak to the midwife after the scan because no time was left. As a woman who has been through pregnancy, I would expect such basic healthcare provisions for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I am grateful that the right hon. Lady placed that on the record. It turns my stomach that we are in this situation. Ninety of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were released back into the community to continue with their cases, so they were locked up and re-traumatised for no reason at all. One of the pregnant women who the charity Women for Refugee Women is in touch with, a survivor of trafficking, was recently released back into the community after being detained for almost two months, even though Home Office guidance says that pregnant women should be detained only if their removal is imminent.

[Alex Chalk]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, but do we not have to be a tiny bit careful about making the point that people are sometimes released into the community and then continue normally? It happens in the criminal system that people who are remanded in custody subsequently have their trial and are acquitted, but that does not necessarily mean that, in all cases, there is not a public policy reason for such action. I understand her argument, but I wonder whether that is the strongest point.

[Sarah Champion]

I will come on to strengthen my point in a moment. It is welcome news that the Home Office has committed to consult on its policy of detaining pregnant women and I hope that it will engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including women who have been in detention while pregnant, to make sure that the process is meaningful. Standards of healthcare in Yarl’s Wood need to improve as a matter of real urgency, but we must not lose sight of the fact that locking up women who have come to the UK to seek our protection is harmful by its nature. However much healthcare services are improved, detention causes mental health trauma and exacerbates physical problems.

These women do not need to be in Yarl’s Wood in the first place. Their claims could be dealt with much more effectively in the community. In fact, two thirds of asylum-seeking women are released from Yarl’s Wood to do just that. The Home Office’s own evidence on the new family returns process found no rise in absconding among families seeking asylum since children stopped being detained at Yarl’s Wood. We can and should learn from that.

Minister, locking up women seeking asylum is expensive, unnecessary and unjust. It is time that the practice is swiftly brought to an end.

Counter-terrorism

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the confidence he has shown in the counter-extremism strategy and in the work that we have developed and are developing on counter-extremism. As he knows, we have had discussions with the devolved Administrations on how the strategy should apply in those parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland and Scotland. Of course, work is already undertaken in Northern Ireland, in a separate strand of action, and that has been shown to be very valuable. Obviously, as he will be aware, at the moment the counter-extremism strategy that we are developing does not apply to Northern Ireland.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Internet-based propaganda does a huge amount to radicalise and brainwash people living in the UK into planning atrocities or travelling abroad to fight. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional resources invested in our security services, including GCHQ, which is based in my constituency, significantly enhance our ability to hunt that material down and remove it?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Importantly, we have enhanced the resources going into our security and intelligence agencies. He of course has a particular interest in GCHQ, given his constituency. The work being done there is very important, not just because of the information and intelligence that might be helpful in counter-terrorism, but because of what is done there to counter the cyber-security threat we face.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. More than three dozen hon. and right hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any realistic chance of accommodating them without intruding excessively on subsequent business, brevity is now required.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Constituents of mine who work at GCHQ are some of the most talented and dedicated public servants anywhere in our country, but they are also conscientious and scrupulous about acting within the law. Does the Secretary of State agree that these measures contain a clear authorisation and oversight framework, including a welcome judicial element, which can command public confidence and, crucially, allow GCHQ employees to do their vital work with professionalism and pride?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend does well in speaking for his constituents who work at GCHQ, and indeed for all who work at GCHQ. Obviously, I have met and dealt with a number of them, and with our other security agencies such as the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says—these people act with extreme professionalism in the work they do, and take extreme care with the powers they exercise. They are very conscious of the powers they hold and they are very careful in the exercise of them. As my hon. Friend says, the Bill provides the important strong oversight arrangements that will enable the people at GCHQ and our other agencies to get on with the job they do so well, day in and day out.

Policing

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on policing. I am a criminal barrister by training, as I should probably declare at the outset. I have prosecuted hundreds of offences—from youth robberies in the magistrates court to murders and terrorism offences in the Old Bailey—and I know as well as anyone that our criminal justice system owes an enormous debt of gratitude to our police officers, particularly officers who carry out their duties with a tenacity that is always tempered by fairness. I believe our best police officers, particularly the ones I worked with in counter-terrorism and homicide cases, embody the finest traditions of British policing, with a determination to pursue lines of inquiry wherever they may lead and to get to the truth, however inconvenient that may be. The officers I worked with in serious cases were, without doubt, among the finest to be found anywhere in the world.

The background to this debate is the difficult funding climate that the police, and indeed other public services, have faced. We cannot get away from that, or forget that despite having the fastest growing economy in the developed world—generating more jobs in Yorkshire alone, the county of the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), than in the entirety of France, and creating more employment for young people in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the EU put together—we are still running a very significant deficit. If we do not get the deficit under control, it will be a real and present danger to our financial stability. It is also right to say that if we do not get it under control, the deficit will do nothing to keep crime levels as low as we want them to be. Indeed, if we do not get it under control, we will not be able to continue to plough more money into our NHS and into protecting our schools.

How have the police responded to this funding climate? They have risen to the challenge magnificently. Crime has fallen since 2010: there have been 2.9 million fewer crimes, 189,000 fewer burglaries and 465,000 fewer violent offences. The independent crime survey for England and Wales shows a fall of 8% in the year to the end of June 2015. In my own county of Gloucestershire, crime is down by 18%. That is a tribute to the police officers who have shown such resourcefulness and dedication in serving the people of Gloucestershire, and my constituency of Cheltenham in particular. It is worth noting that those stunning falls have been achieved in the context of a much improved reporting culture, with people feeling better able to report crime, particular sexual offences.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience, asserts that crime is falling. May I quote City of London Police Commissioner Adrian Leppard, who is the national fraud co-ordinator? He said in a circular to all police and crime commissioners and chief constables that the crime survey for England and Wales will shortly include at least

“an extra 3 million fraud and cyber incidents”.

That reflects for the first time the changing and true nature of crime and, in his words, is

“an increase of up to 40%.”

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that crime is changing. That is of course correct, and I will come on to that in a moment. However, the truth—the inconvenient truth for Labour Members, some might say—is that the figures cited are the very figures on which they relied, being those of the independent crime survey for England and Wales. It is no good saying, “Yes, we relied on those in the past but we are not going to rely on them now because they are inconvenient.” There has to be consistency across the piece. There is that consistency of reporting and the figures are unanswerable: crime has come down.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend thought about some of the reasons why crime is falling? Does he agree that it may be linked to our having a stronger economy, with more employment? On the link between crime and deprivation, does he agree that it may be linked to the fact that we have the lowest number of workless households on record?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. friend makes an important point, one that I was trying to make at the outset. We have to live within our means, not least because if we do not and the implications of economic instability befall our country, one thing that will rise, just as the sun rises in the morning, is crime. That is another reason why we have to live within our means.

How have the police managed to achieve this fall in crime? They have been innovative and forward-thinking. Savings have been made through improved procurement, which has delivered more than £200 million; the police have become less top heavy, rebalancing their forces in favour of rank and file officers; and they have redeployed their assets, putting a higher proportion of police officers on the frontline. As for the Government, it is right to say that the key priorities have been maintained and properly funded. I am particularly interested in counter-terrorism, and £564 million has been put towards supporting counter-terrorism policing in 2015-16. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received additional funding, as has the police innovation fund. The College of Policing direct entry schemes have also been properly supported. Let us just look at what the police innovation fund has done. It is a multimillion pound fund that will consider proof of concept bids, as well as implementation-ready bids, to support innovation and breakthrough ideas.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman has asserted that counter-terrorism is fully funded. There is unanimity across this House in our determination to tackle the generational threat of terrorism, and there is effective funding of the national and regional strategies accordingly. But what does he have to say to Peter Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism, who has said that what the Government are missing is neighbourhood policing? He said that if we hollow out neighbourhood policing, we

“risk breaking the ‘golden thread’”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course there needs to be front-line policing, too—that is simply unarguable—but I was going to discuss how resourceful and innovative police forces, doing more with less, have been able to deliver that. I wish to talk about what is happening in my county of Gloucestershire, but first let me address the change in crime, about which the hon. Gentleman made a point. He rightly said that crime is changing, but steps have been taken to address that. As we know, the National Crime Agency has been established to take the fight to organised crime, but Opposition Members made no mention of the £860 million invested in the national cyber-security programme to improve cyber-security. I respectfully invite them to mention it, because it is an important innovation. We have also had campaigns such as Cyber Streetwise to help members of the public.

In Gloucestershire, local officers have responded superbly. They have a commendable can-do attitude, they have rolled up their sleeves and they have got on with it. When National Police Chiefs Council officer Sara Thornton said that members of the public should no longer expect police officers to turn up at their door, officers in Gloucestershire said, “No, we will attend.” That is the right approach to take, because burglary is a horrible crime that robs people of their security and it requires a police response—and a police response will continue in Gloucestershire. It shows that Cheltenham and Gloucestershire’s officers are doing an excellent job—

[Jim Dowd]

rose—

[Alex Chalk]

I am sorry, but I am not going to give way. Gloucestershire’s officers are doing an excellent job of making important reforms while continuing to deliver on the public’s priorities. The truth is that further savings can be made, be it through collaboration—emergency services collaboration, where appropriate—procurement or reallocation to the frontline. Measures can be taken by which we face the financial reality but keep our people safe, too. We should back our police officers. They have done it in the past and they will do it again.