Southend Hospital

Debate between Anne Main and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for his intervention. I know that a lot of work has been done in Manchester. I will come on to some of the public health issues. He is right to raise public health concerns. There are, of course, public health duties on local authorities, and the public health risks relating to shisha are not well understood and publicised. He is absolutely right that much more awareness is needed. I congratulate Manchester for the good work it has done in this area.

The common life of those residents and the community they created, which they love and have thrived in for all these years, was being ruined. Some of those stalwart residents—the absolute backbone of the community—told me that they wanted to leave and were desperate to move out. In fact, they most wanted my help with council housing transfers. I thought that was one of the saddest things, because those people are the lifeblood of the area. If they move out, we will lose something much more profound in the community. It was all because they simply could not tolerate the daily misery they were facing because of the shisha venue.

As people became more vocal with their complaints—I took up the issues and worked with the council and the police, who were doing their best to manage the fallout from the venue opening near my residents, and there was more media coverage in the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail—residents became worried about reprisals from patrons of the venue. Suddenly, it became much more of a hot topic. Things then took a more serious and frightening turn, because gun violence and other serious crime was taking place. People were up in arms but also terrified. I was shocked that almost overnight a community could be ruined by a shisha place opening.

As the local Member of Parliament, I initially treated this as a policing matter. It is interesting that other parliamentarians and council leaders have tended to raise it with Home Office Ministers as a policing issue. I, too, talked to the police. We thought about having more policing patrols and possible interventions, but eventually I had to conclude that the law itself makes things complicated in this area. My thought was, “Just take away the shisha licence,” because that is the business model on which the premises are based—take it away and they will not have a business and will soon move on—but of course there is no licence for shisha.

In the case of Arabian Nites, it took a couple of serious incidents involving gun discharges—one discharge ricocheted and hit a passer-by—before the police could apply for a closure order under antisocial behaviour rules. Such closure orders are temporary and the one for Arabian Nites was for only three months. The venue has not reopened, but it is free to do so once it has met the new conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for that clarity and hope that the hon. Lady is concluding her remarks.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am, Mrs Main. I am not an expert on how these matters play out in devolved Administrations, but they obviously need a voice because they face different regimes. I will take up the Minister’s offer, and I hope we will get to have greater knowledge about shisha establishments, the impact they can have and how best they can be regulated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reforming the regulation of shisha lounges.

Deaths in Police Custody

Debate between Anne Main and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to his seat. He is making a speech, not an intervention—it should be an intervention and a question to the Member whose debate it is. We should have the courtesy of allowing the hon. Lady the time to speak.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to put his constituent’s case on the record. Restraint methods are an issue in cases involving deaths in police custody. My focus is particularly on the way in which these investigations take place and the amount of time that it takes to conduct them.

If the process got results, answered the questions that families have and ensured that the lessons that need to be learned are, in fact, learned, I suppose one could tolerate the fact that sometimes the investigation takes a very long time. But that is demonstrably not the case in the vast majority of cases involving deaths in police custody. The process takes far, far too long and it often leaves families with more questions and much greater pain. That is not something that any of us should continue to accept.

The impact on the wider community is also very profound. Contentious deaths in police custody include an ever-increasing number of people with mental health illnesses, and a disproportionately large number of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds—and, sometimes, people from BME backgrounds with mental health issues. If those cases are not seen to be taken seriously and investigations are not seen to be conducted with due seriousness and as quickly as possible, trust in the system erodes seriously, breeding justifiable anger and resentment, and it is incumbent on all of us to do whatever we can to address that.

Sometimes it does not seem that deaths in police custody are treated as cases in which potentially a crime has been committed. The starting point should always be that we simply do not know what has happened, so all possible scenarios are on the table, but many families report that that is not how it feels to them. In practice, it feels as though a judgment has already been made and an end result is already in mind, long before the investigation has begun.

Despite the more than 900 deaths in police custody and several verdicts of unlawful killing, there has yet to be a single successful prosecution—a point that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) also raised—of any police officer involved in those deaths. Again, that does not create much confidence in the wider public that the system is robust enough to ensure that when things go seriously wrong, as they do in many of these cases, we will get proper answers and accountability. It is the lack of accountability that bothers so many of my constituents, and it is the potential for lack of accountability that is keeping Janet Brown and her family awake at night. They fear that their questions will never be answered and someone will never be held to account for the death of Kingsley Burrell.

There are other issues in relation to deaths in police custody. People would expect sensitive and thorough handling of the investigation in the immediate aftermath of a death—the so-called golden hours, which are critical to evidence gathering and setting the direction and quality of the investigation that is to follow. Again, many families report that that does not happen in practice.

The independent charity INQUEST also tells us of particular problems in relation to IPCC material and disclosure, including ahead of inquest hearings. For a bereaved family trying to engage in an IPCC investigation, the organisation’s reluctance to provide early and full disclosure or to explain clearly, in language that ordinary people can understand—not lawyer-speak—why they cannot provide that evidence at the early stages of investigations, and when they expect to do so, fosters mistrust and is alienating and deeply unhelpful. Families often feel that they are not kept up to date and involved in the progress of the investigations. Of those who felt that they were kept involved and informed, many reported dissatisfaction because the information given to them was inadequate, difficult to obtain or delayed.

It seems to me that we have an ad hoc and chaotic system for investigations into deaths in police custody. There is no agreed method or structure and no checklist of what needs to happen and when. We need a uniform approach that allows professional judgment to be exercised on a case-by-case basis, but always in the context of a coherent and consistent national protocol for the structure of the relationship between investigating officials and the bereaved, and clear guidelines about the time frames that need to apply. That is the only way we can give the families who suffer in this way some confidence that they will at least understand the system and the process that is supposed to apply, and that they can hold to account the individuals involved.

I have mentioned the IPCC, and I believe that it has lost the confidence of the public and is not fit for purpose. It should be abolished and replaced by a new police standards authority, whose job it would be to take action and raise standards when policing goes wrong. Such an authority should be tasked with creating the national set of guidelines or protocols that should apply to the investigation of deaths in police custody, so that we can ensure that everyone knows what is meant to happen and when.

At this point, however, we still have the IPCC. I know that the Government have started their own review and it would be helpful if the Minister, when he responds to my remarks, could set out exactly what is planned for that review. But whoever ultimately has responsibility for these investigations—whether the IPCC, as now, or another organisation—its key task in the aftermath of a contentious death following police contact must be to begin immediately an independent, effective, accountable, prompt, public and inclusive investigation, so that the rule of law is seen to be upheld and applied equally to all citizens, including those in police uniform.

Young constituents of mine made this point to me only today when I was doing an interview on a local community radio station. They said, “Sometimes it feels that if you wear a uniform, you are above the law. You are there to enforce the law and to keep us all safe, but you should not be above it.” They make a fair point. It sometimes feels as if officers are not held properly to account. That relates not only to the potential for successful prosecutions and convictions but to the sense that if misconduct occurs, it will be challenged.

So often in relation to these cases, we say, “Lessons must be learned,” and we imply that lessons will in fact be learned. However, in my experience the lessons are not learned, because the cases of deaths in police custody that keep occurring all seem to follow the same pattern, and the same mistakes are often repeated. The families involved all report the same things going wrong in the investigations.

The experience of the Burrell family and the amount of time that it took for the investigations to conclude is very similar to that of other families who have suffered in similar circumstances. That says to me that the phrase “lessons must be learned” means nothing. Lessons are not learned, and it is about time that we started to get that right. If people are not held accountable, if there are no prosecutions and if there are no grounds for misconduct charges, at the very least we must fix the processes that apply when someone dies in these circumstances, given that we know there is a problem with them. That is one way in which we can start to give people confidence in the system again.

A few weeks ago, Janet Brown said to me that she has not yet grieved for her son and she will not do so until all her questions about his death have been answered and until she feels at peace that she has done everything she can to get justice for him. I think that making good, decent people wait so long and placing them at the mercy of a very chaotic system is a scar on our collective conscience. I really hope that the Minister, when he responds, can give Janet, the Burrell family and me some confidence that the Government understand not only the policy implications of these cases, but the emotional impact that they have, and that he and the Government will do something about it.

Stamp Duty (Housing Market)

Debate between Anne Main and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 4th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have received submissions from various experts on the matter and we are looking at it very closely. We are clear about our start position. We do not want more modest properties to be brought into the mansion tax regime, and we are looking carefully at the details of our ultimate policy to ensure that that does not happen. I have had conversations with people about the issue, but I cannot tell him today what we will ultimately be able to take forward.

[Mrs Main]

For clarification, before the hon. Lady moved on to her mansion tax, she mentioned the slab structure, which was introduced by a Labour Government. Do the Opposition have any plans in their manifesto to tackle the slab structure at the same time as introducing the mansion tax? I am sure that she has received representations on that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right. I have received representations about the slab structure, as, I am sure, has the Minister. It is one feature of stamp duty that causes particular consternation, as we have heard from all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today. I cannot make a manifesto commitment today, but I will make it clear later in my speech that we are alive to the issues raised today and that we are looking at them carefully.

I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made a customary reference to the Laffer curve. I feel that these debates are not quite what they should be if there is not at least one reference to the Laffer curve. I was pleased that he was able to make that point.

I acknowledge the passionate views of hon. Members in this debate. There has been a vigorous campaign on the issue. I suspect that many hon. Members are less concerned about what I have to say about Labour policy and more concerned about what the Minister might do ahead of the autumn statement on 3 December. We saw a similar vigorous campaign ahead of the Budget earlier this year. In the lead up to that Budget, the expectation was that there might be a doubling of the threshold to £250,000 and the introduction of a stamp duty tax credit system, but the Government did not ultimately go down that path. I suspect we are seeing a similar build-up of lobbying for the Government to do something in the autumn statement.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think the point that the deputy leader was making was about progressive taxation and the argument that those who are wealthier should pay more. That is the thinking behind our mansion tax policy. His Government have presided over more people being brought into the 40p tax band, for example, and he could ask his Minister about that today.

Stamp duty is a matter of growing concern to the public and a significant burden on people wanting to buy a new home, particularly first-time buyers. I acknowledge the strength of feeling among hon. Members and throughout the country, but I am not in a position to make a spending commitment via this debate. Stamp duty brings in a large and growing amount of revenue, and any policy change in this area would have to be fully funded. Our start point as an incoming Labour Government in 2015 would be the current Government’s spending plans for 2015-16 and any change to that spending round would have to be fully funded. That has been the thinking behind the policies we have unveiled. They are all fully funded and primarily involve switching from one area of spend to another to deal with some of our child care priorities and other measures.

The difficult financial position that an incoming Labour Government in 2015 would inherit means that we would have to make some difficult choices. Given that, our focus has been wider reform of the housing market and how it might stimulate greater home ownership. In particular, the problem of housing supply has become acute in the past few years and is causing many problems, such as people having to rely on the bank of mum and dad and home ownership occurring much later in life. The hon. Member for St Albans made a point about that, and it is true.

We are seeing the biggest housing crisis in a generation and we are not building even half the homes we need to keep up with demand. The shortage of decent homes has much wider social and economic costs and we heard about some of those relating to inflexibility in the labour market, as well as the impact on people in overcrowded homes and the impact on children’s health and educational outcomes.

What can we do to build more homes? That must be the centre point of getting more sense and fairness into our housing market. We supported the Help to Buy scheme, but we would have preferred a scheme that focused more on first-time buyers. Our policy shows that the Government have simply not understood that boosting demand without boosting supply risks putting prices out of reach of the very families and young people we particularly want to help to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed ourselves to building 200,000 homes a year by 2020. That is probably not enough, and we should build many more than that, but it is an ambitious start point. We currently have a housing commission, led by Sir Michael Lyons, which is looking at a detailed road map, so that we may be able to deliver our vision.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the Help to Buy scheme? It has proved to be a good scheme in the north by helping people, but has not worked in the south because people must save the stamp duty as well as being helped with the mortgage deposit. We cannot get past that with the current Help to Buy scheme. Stamp duty is the barrier, especially in the south, no matter how many houses are built.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. She is certainly right about the interplay between the Help to Buy policy and the burden that remains with stamp duty. As I have said, in constrained financial circumstances, difficult choices must be made and we have preferred at this stage to look at how we might do the one central thing that we know can reform the housing market and get more homes within the reach of more people: build more homes. That must be the start point, and that is the key issue with the Help to Buy scheme. It is not a bad policy and we should be helping people to buy homes, but we must boost supply, and we are failing to do that at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have made it clear that that is a central commitment of our party. We acknowledge that we simply did not build enough homes when we were in government. No Government for 20-odd years have built enough homes. We recognise that without boosting supply we will simply not have fairness and sense in our housing market. That is why we set up the Lyons commission. We want to ensure that we have a detailed road map. We will unveil it in our manifesto ahead of the general election and it will show exactly how we will realise our ambition in government.

[Mrs Main]

I fail to see how, in a high land value area, any Government can promise to build at expensive house prices. It is simply impossible without making the whole market collapse around it. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the hon. Lady. I think that it is right to set targets and ambitions, and it is right that we look to such experts to help us to get to that position. We are looking partly at the expense of land and the housing market in different parts of the country. We will discuss those issues in greater detail as we get closer to producing our manifesto.