Undercover Policing

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.

On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Macpherson inquiry was instigated by failures in the initial investigation by the Metropolitan police. It was effectively an investigation into the Metropolitan police, so the idea that it was hiding information from the inquiry beggars belief. Sir Paul Condon, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, said that he knew nothing about the SDS in the Metropolitan police, which I believe was funded by the Home Office. Someone in the Metropolitan police decided not to provide this information to the Macpherson inquiry. Can we be clear: people are not satisfied with the police investigating the police? The public will be satisfied only by a fully independent, publicly held inquiry with oversight of all these matters, including the suggestions of corruption and the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence.

[Mrs May]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s level of concern. He is right that the Macpherson inquiry was an investigation into the way in which the Metropolitan police had handled itself. It went wider and looked at the Metropolitan police as a whole, including its attitudes in such cases. No information should have been hidden from the Macpherson inquiry and the allegation that it was is shocking. I set up the Mark Ellison review last year with the support of and after full discussions with Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family. I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at whether information had been withheld from the Macpherson inquiry, so that is already part of his remit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mark Ellison is independent in the work that he is doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Lady needs to be careful with her figures. If she is arguing that the participation rates have fallen, that is only for the winter. I was told that rugby league, which is big in her part of the world, had a week in which 96% of all its fixtures were cancelled. That explains the drop-off in participation. [Interruption.] Well yes; because when there is snow on the ground you can’t play rugby league. I would have thought that as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) could have probably worked that out. The fact is that participation rates are above the national average in the part of the world the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) represents. I encourage local authorities to make use of both the Olympic effect and the many sports fixtures coming to her part of the world this year to drive up rates.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

At best, the active people figure for West Lancashire has flatlined, and participation rates in the north-west have gone down. Overall, the country has seen a reduction of 200,000. It is less than a year since the Olympic games and what have we got? Some 68% of school sports organisers tell us that fewer children are doing sport and that they are spending less time doing it. While the rest of us looked forward to an Olympic legacy, the Government were wrecking school sports partnerships. Now they are blaming the weather for adult figures going down. Rather than riding on the back of fluctuations in the climate, will the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and tell us what he is going to do to deliver a sustainable Olympic legacy?

[Hugh Robertson]

The first thing is that the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The second is that anybody with an iota of common sense would accept that if there is snow on the ground rugby league cannot be played, and that if there is ice on the road people are unlikely take their bicycles out. In the period since 2005 when we won the bid, up to the moment when, across two Governments, we delivered the games, London was the first host city to deliver a sustained increase—of 1.4 million—in participation. I pay tribute to the policy devised by James Purnell and carried through by the right hon. Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when they were Secretaries of State. We should celebrate the fact that this country has achieved what no other country in the history of the Olympic games has ever achieved. Ranting and carping is pretty stupid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Today’s report by Ofsted on sport in schools calls on the Government to devise

“a new national strategy for PE and school sport that builds on the successes of school sport partnerships”.

Those partnerships have been totally undermined by this Government. It is unacceptable that six months after the Olympics, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver a coherent sports strategy. If they continue to delay, they will fail the generation that we should be inspiring. How many more damning reports need to be published before the Minister gets it and the Government deliver the sporting legacy that our children deserve?

[Hugh Robertson]

First, the Opposition spokesman should not conflate sport legacy with a school sport policy. He is well aware that the sport legacy is going extraordinarily well. He tends never to mention that 1.75 million people are now playing sport who were not playing sport at the time of the bid. There is also a range of international events, and around the globe 14 million extra children have been touched by sport.

If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise sport provision on the back of the Ofsted report, he should wake up to the fact that it covers 2008 to 2012—throughout the period in which the school sport partnerships were operating. If he wishes to see them reintroduced, he has to explain to the House and others how they would be funded, about which we have heard not a jot from the Opposition since the election.

Stephen Lawrence

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether she will establish a public inquiry into recent allegations that corruption within the Metropolitan police force interfered with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

May I first apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is overseas on Government business?

It is a matter of deep regret that it took 19 years to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. In the years since he was murdered, the Lawrence family fought tirelessly for justice and, without their efforts, it is unlikely that either Gary Dobson or David Norris would have been convicted. I hope that the verdicts in January will finally have delivered some comfort to the Lawrence family.

Allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on two previous occasions. They were examined by the Macpherson inquiry, which concluded that

“no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.”

The allegations were also looked at by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2006, which again was unable to find any corruption in the original murder investigation. Following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, further allegations of corruption have come to light. As a result, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs Lawrence has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asking her to set up a public inquiry.

Allegations of police corruption must always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is essential that we ensure that the actions and behaviours of any corrupt police officers do not undermine public confidence in the police’s ability to respond to, investigate and fight crime. The Metropolitan police are currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations and we await their findings. I would like to reassure Members of the House that my right hon. Friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness. She is currently considering her decision and has offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss the issues further. My right hon. Friend will keep the House updated.

[Clive Efford]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, as far as it goes. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, and his family’s campaign for justice, led to the Macpherson inquiry, which was a landmark for policing in this country. One of Macpherson’s conclusions that remains in doubt relates to whether police corruption hampered the inquiry into Stephen’s murder. We have now seen fresh evidence that might call that conclusion into question.

Over the past two months, I have tabled questions on two occasions but have been fobbed off with holding answers. Yesterday, however, reports in the press that had clearly been sanctioned by the Home Office suggested that the Home Secretary had told the Lawrence family that she shared their concerns. If that is the case, can we take it that the Minister accepts that there is evidence of police corruption that is worthy of further inquiry?

There is also speculation that one of the Secretary of State’s reasons for not setting up an inquiry is cost, and it has been stated that there could be swifter and cheaper ways of dealing with the matter. According to reports, the police have taken six weeks and still cannot confirm whether all the relevant documents relating to Operation Russell were sent to the inquiry. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us what constitutes “swift” in the context of an inquiry? We cannot have any more bluster and delay. There has been far too much since the moment Stephen Lawrence was murdered.

Stephen’s family are asking for an inquiry into this matter. Will the Minister now answer my questions? Does he accept that only an independent, public inquiry will satisfy public concerns over the new allegations? Does he also accept that, as there has already been too much delay, such an inquiry should be expedited as quickly as possible, either by reconvening the Macpherson inquiry or by setting up a new inquiry team to follow on with its work?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and underline the seriousness we attach to the current allegations. The Home Secretary is looking very closely at this matter, but wishes the Metropolitan police’s internal review into the current allegations to conclude to inform her determination of what next steps are appropriate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those investigations should be carried out by the Metropolitan police swiftly in order to inform further consideration of whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate.

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be looked at speedily and closely by the Home Secretary, who will continue to have discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is essential to have trust and confidence in the policing provided within London and in the rest of the country. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office has not sought in any way to brief this out, and that any decisions made by the Home Secretary should be reported to this House first. I can assure him that this matter will be dealt with entirely appropriately to provide the necessary reassurance on this significant matter—to him, to his constituents and to the Lawrence family.

Abu Qatada

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I fully appreciate that the public will be concerned by the delaying tactic that is being employed. I warned the House earlier this week—and, indeed, warned people more generally—that the process of deportation could take many months and that legal avenues were open to Abu Qatada to pursue, and that is of course what has happened. In response to my hon. Friend’s first point, the Government’s case is strong. It is educational to look at what happened on Tuesday. At the beginning of the SIAC hearing, Abu Qatada’s lawyers indicated that they were going to take the matter through the UK courts. It was only after they heard our case and the judgment that was brought down on Abu Qatada by Justice Mitting that they decided to attempt this referral.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Journalists are reporting today that they have checked with the European Court, and that it was the Court’s opinion that the three-month period started to be measured from the day after the domestic decision, which was the 17th. That was reported to the Home Office. Was it brought to the attention of the Secretary of State? Did her officials ever put before her the decision whether to go forward on 17 April or 18 April? This is an important question: did her officials ever give her the option of delaying for 24 hours in order to be safe according to the European Court’s position?

[Mrs May]

The position of the Government has always been absolutely clear—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] The position that we have been working on is that the deadline was Monday 16 April. The hon. Gentleman’s question is based on an incorrect premise, and if he had listened to the answers that I gave earlier, he would realise that. His claim is that, had the action been delayed by a day, no referral could have been made by Abu Qatada. I have made it clear, however, that it is a matter for the discretion of the panel of judges of the Grand Chamber whether to accept a referral within the deadline or outside it.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to welcome the opening of the Quedgeley centre, and I am sure from what my hon. Friend has said that it will do excellent work locally in helping young people and providing the support they need. He also makes the valid and interesting point that dealing with these issues is not all about Government spending money—sadly, a message that Opposition Members seem to have failed to understand.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government have cut 60% from community safety budgets, including £10 million from London alone. Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position in respect of the £10 million she has announced today? Is it the same £10 million she announced back in February for early intervention? If it is, will she undertake to write to Members to explain what has been cut today as a result of her announcement?

[Mrs May]

I can confirm that we were making a further £10 million available next year for the early intervention fund. We will be ensuring that that money is specifically spent on projects related to gang and youth violence projects. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] Well, Opposition Members say “Ah,” but—[Interruption.] I have never been able to imitate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), so I shall not attempt to do so. I simply make the point I made earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller): we are talking about a new approach, and about working across the whole of government—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are making the mistake of thinking that the only thing that matters is the amount of money that is available to spend, when what matters is how we spend it—a lesson that, sadly, the Opposition failed to learn during 13 years in Government. That is why they wasted so much taxpayers’ money and we are now paying the price.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

One point of agreement between me and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) is that I think that this is a question of balancing collective protection and individual freedom. We can agree on that much, but in some ways the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the other end of the telescope. Through the indefinite retention regime that was the hallmark of the previous Labour Government, he seeks to retain data and information for as long as possible in case it becomes useful. I think he was accusing us of being dogmatic on this point in some ways, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends come at it from the perspective that they want indefinite retention of everyone’s DNA for as long as possible. Our starting point is different. Our concept is that of innocent until proven guilty, so we come at this from a different direction.

I shall address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s direct points, but, as this is a wide-ranging group of amendments, it might assist the House if I explain the Government’s amendments before responding to those tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and others.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who played a key part in Committee. I am sure that I will welcome his contribution to the debate.

[Clive Efford]

The Minister has just said that he has accepted the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but will he confirm that everyone who is arrested will, at the point at which they are arrested, have their DNA sample taken and checked against the national DNA database, so that principle does not hold? The Government accept the principle that innocent people will have their DNA retained for up to three years for various crimes, so does he accept that we are debating the principle of who should have their DNA retained for three years or for six years? On the question of people’s civil liberties, will the Minister take into consideration the civil liberties of those who might be the victims of crimes that will not be detected because of the position that the Government have taken?

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the hon. Gentleman—he and I had a fair and clear debate on this matter in Committee—that the Government take into consideration the position of the victim, which is why I said that that principle was our starting point. That is why we are adopting the provisions in the Bill. We recognise that more than 5.7 million people are on the national DNA database and about 70% of the profiles in the EU are on our national database, so it important—and our responsibility—to consider the issues extraordinarily carefully to ensure that we judge the balance correctly.

I shall go briefly through the Government’s amendments before returning to the important issues of principle and to do with the duration of retention. Government amendments 1 to 15, 33 to 38, 65, 66, 72 and 73 fine-tune the provisions governing the retention of DNA. In a number of cases, they pick up on points raised in Committee. The key amendments all touch on the role of the commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material and I shall detail those amendments first.

When we considered clause 3 in Committee, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and others expressed concern that much of the detail about the arrangements for retaining biometric material taken from those arrested for, but not charged with, a qualifying offence was left to subordinate legislation. I gave the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Government would take the issue away and consider it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also raised concerns about the issue in their recent report on the Bill. We have considered the issue further and agree that it is appropriate to place such detail on the face of the Bill. Amendments 1 to 5 therefore remove from clause 3 the existing order-making power for the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which such retention would be permitted and replace it with new section 63FA of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

New section 63FA sets out the circumstances in which a chief officer of police may apply to the commissioner to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints of those arrested for, but not charged with, a serious offence. The first circumstance, in new section 63FA(2), is where the victim of the alleged offender is a minor, a vulnerable adult or is “associated” with the suspect. The second circumstance, in new section 63FA(3), is where none of the criteria in subsection (2) apply but the chief officer none the less considers it necessary to retain the material to prevent or detect crime. The chief officer must give the person to whom the biometric material relates a copy of the application made to the commissioner. It is then open to that person to make representations to the commissioner within 28 days and it will then fall to the commissioner to determine the application based on these papers. Amendment 15 to clause 24 enables the National DNA Database Strategy Board to provide guidance to the police in such cases, thus helping to ensure consistency in the making of applications to the commissioner. Amendment 9 to clause 20 ensures that the provisions dovetail with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.

In addition to the commissioner’s review function in individual cases, we believe that the commissioner should also have a more general oversight role. Amendment 11 therefore extends the role of the commissioner to provide him or her with a general function of keeping under review the retention and use of DNA and fingerprints by police and other law enforcement authorities.

I draw the House’s attention to amendment 7, which makes two further exemptions from the normal retention rules. First, new subsection (2A) of section 63T of PACE, inserted by clause 17, ensures that the police can retain hard copies of material on case files. That is in order to ensure that a copy of the material remains available for examination by defence experts, and potentially the Criminal Cases Review Commission, in accordance with the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The changes are therefore intended to ensure that the provisions discharge CPIA compliance obligations. The CPIA exists to prevent miscarriages of justice and I am sure that we would all agree that nothing in the Bill can undermine that purpose.

In order to enable the police to meet their obligations, new section 63T(2A) provides for the police to retain the minimum amount of biometric material necessary. So the records on the DNA and fingerprint databases would be destroyed in accordance with the existing provisions of the Bill, leaving only hard copies on the police case file that could be examined by the defence or the Criminal Cases Review Commission as necessary.

The second part of amendment 7, which inserts new subsection (2B) of section 63T, arises from a concern raised with us by Forensic Science Northern Ireland. The service was concerned that, because of the way that PACE is drafted, all samples taken compulsorily from a suspect would be caught by the requirement to destroy them in clause 14 of the Bill. That would include material originating from another person that is evidence of contact between people and would often be key evidence in a trial examining that contact. An example may be where traces of a victim’s blood have been taken from a suspect’s hand. New subsection (2B) of new section 63T therefore provides that where material is taken from one person that originates from another it is not required to be destroyed within six months but can be retained for as long as is necessary in the same way as crime scene material can because it is, essentially, crime scene material.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. We have had a number of meetings with chief constables and others. As I said in an earlier answer, I am chairing an inter-ministerial group that works on tackling gangs—it is looking at that particular aspect of the riots—and we have already had a number of discussions about public order policing, in particular. I have, of course, asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the issue and advise on guidance for forces on matters such as tactics and the number of police that need to be trained in dealing with riots.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is now 15 months since the joint thematic review on the nature and culture of gangs reported in June 2010. The review was carried out by the chief inspector of prisons, the chief inspector of constabulary and the chief inspector of probation. They concluded that

“there was no integrated joint national strategy”

and so agencies had

“missed significant opportunities to work with young people involved or likely to get involved in gangs.”

Can she say when we are likely to get a response to that review from the Government?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of a review that was, of course, reporting on what had taken place under the Labour Government. We are undertaking a particular piece of work on gangs, bringing a number of Departments together to examine the issues and work out how we can best address the gang culture and prevent young people from getting involved in gangs. In doing that, we are doing what is absolutely right: we are looking at not only the evidence that has come before, but at practice on the ground today. We are finding out what is working today and looking at how to extend that good practice to other parts of the country.

Legislative Reform Order (Epping Forest)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the way in which they have represented their constituents’ views on this matter. Anyone who has had a conversation with them about the issue is left in no doubt about the strength of the opposition locally to the proposals.

I am sure that we all welcome the fact that we have the Olympic games coming to London. We also understand that it is impossible to have the world’s greatest sporting spectacle take place in our great city without we, as hosts, accepting some inconvenience if we are to put on a safe, efficient and enjoyable games. Our aim must be to showcase our city and country and confirm our status as one of the world’s leading nations, a place that people want to visit and do business in. However, we must also remember that foremost in the minds of local people is the legacy. One way that the success of the games will be judged, when the pomp and fanfare has been and gone, is the legacy left for the people of London, particularly those who live in and around the Olympic boroughs. We all understand and accept that in order to deliver a safe and efficient games the Metropolitan police must be free to make judgments and decisions on operational matters, and the Minister has our full support in that, but it is unfortunate that this decision is being made in the face of local opposition. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure local people that their concerns about the future of the site will be considered.

Wanstead Flats is a highly valued and essential open space in that part of London. In the short time I had to prepare for the debate, and being that sort of anorak, I decided to look up the history of Wanstead Flats and discovered that attempts to enclose it and restrict access for the common people have long been a source of controversy. In 1871, Henry Wellesley, Earl Cowley, attempted to enclose another piece of the flats. An advertisement with the headline “Save The Forest” encouraged working men to “Attend by Thousands” an open air meeting on Wanstead Flats on Saturday 8 July 1871 and protest against the enclosure. We are dealing with a highly sensitive site in east London that has a history of local activism to protect it. As that piece of history demonstrates, it is clearly because local people have campaigned effectively to protect it that it is still there for us to debate in the House today.

According to the briefing paper provided by the Residents of Leytonstone and Forest Gate campaign, to which I am grateful, the site is designated as green belt and green corridor land, as heritage land and as a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation. To of the north of the site is a part of the flats that is designated as a site of special scientific interest. As a veteran of the campaign to stop the east London river crossing and protect Oxley woods, which is also an SSSI, I sympathise with the people who are sensitive about the use of the site and wish to protect it for the future.

The Epping Forest Act 1878 lays down a legal framework for the preservation and management of Epping forest, requiring its conservators to keep it for local use. I will not list the six requirements set out in the Act because I want other local Members to have enough time to speak. Suffice it to say that the previous Government introduced the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which gives the powers to set aside the 1878 Act, which is what the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is doing. It is a little churlish of me, but I thought I should point that out as another U-turn.

When we deal with local communities like the one in east London, we must remember that they will still be there when everyone has gone home, waiting to see whether the organisers of the games have proved as good as their word and delivered on their promises. The people opposing these plans feel that insufficient effort has been made to find alternative sites and there is concern locally that it could set a precedent for future events. I welcome the comments that the Minister has just made to give reassurances on that.

Will the Minister clarify the position on the future use of the 2006 Act? Is it the case that to use this site in the same way in the future, the same procedure will have to be used and Members of Parliament will again have the opportunity to bring the matter to the Floor of the House if there is strong opposition? Will she also give an assurance that the corporation of London will consult the local community and involve it in future decisions on this site? From the conversations that I have had, there is a feeling that the local community has been left out of those discussions.

[Lyn Brown]

Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the site being restored following its use as a muster site, I know from my time in local government how much argument there can be about whether there has been true restoration of green and open spaces. There are inevitably arguments about how much restoration will cost and to what standard it should be done. Given my fear that the £170,000 will be used to restore the site, rather than to enhance it, does my hon. Friend agree that the police are getting the site rather on the cheap and that they should up their cash so that local people really have something to invest in the site at a later date?

[Clive Efford]

I am not qualified to say what the true value of the site is and what a proper rent would be. However, I do not think that the £170,000 should be used to restore the site. It should be available as a legacy and be spent in consultation with local people. I was just about to make that very point.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

To be clear, we are talking about a large structure, stables for up to 54 horses, an area for dogs and parking for 375 vehicles on a site that has dense vegetation. Many of my constituents very much enjoy going to the Wanstead Flats. I hope the shadow Minister can understand why we are concerned about the restoration of the land, not just in its quality, but in its content. That is vital to the future of the site.

[Clive Efford]

Absolutely. People will need reassurance about the management of that process and should have some input into it to ensure that the standards are not diminished, that the site is restored to its former state and that the damage is not permanent. The only way to reassure the local community is to involve it in the process. I ask the Minister to clarify who will ultimately be responsible for overseeing this. Does she have any influence over the body that will be responsible so that she can ensure that it involves the local community?

I am grateful for the Minister’s unequivocal statement that the £170,000 is for the restoration of the site and not its repair. Will she guarantee that it will be spent in consultation with local people, who have demonstrated through their campaign a great love of and commitment to the site? From their experience of living near the site and visiting it regularly, they will have essential expertise and ideas on how the money can best be spent.

I hope the Minister agrees that when it comes to the legacy, it is issues such as this that will determine in the long run whether local people and communities in the Olympic boroughs feel that the Olympic games have been in the interests of ordinary people, their local communities and London. I hope that the Minister will do everything in her power to ensure that those communities are involved not just in planning the legacy on this side of the games, but in delivering it post the games.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am happy to do that, but may I suggest to the hon. Lady that photographs would be useful in that regard?

I was asked whether the legislative reform order procedure would be required if ever a proposal were made to put something similar on Wanstead Flats, and the answer is yes. As I explained during my opening remarks, we would have to go through all this all over again—there is no question about that.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked why the facility was not part of the local Olympic park itself. There will be facilities for the police and emergency services, including front-counter services, on the park, but we are talking about different things here, as there are operational reasons why a briefing centre needs to be a reasonable distance from the park. Obviously, if anything happened in the park, people would need to come from outside to deal with it.

Redbridge council considered the traffic problems as part of the planning application and was content that the proposals would not damage the local environment. Transport for London raised no objections, and the location was chosen, in part, to avoid potential traffic nuisance.

[Clive Efford]

Before the hon. Lady wanders too far from this subject, may I take her back to the issue of the site? It is not good enough just to say that the City of London corporation is responsible for restoring the site for the local community. After all, the previous Government and this Government have been all over this project of delivering the London Olympic games; no doubt, Secretaries of State and other Ministers will be posing for photographs with famous sports personalities and so on as they arrive. So it is not good enough to say that all this about restoring the site is a local skirmish between the local community and the City of London corporation. Does the Minister not think that the Government have a duty to ensure that the corporation is as good as its word and to represent local people who have these concerns when the site is being restored?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman does the corporation a disservice, because its reputation is generally very good and people would often like it to take things over.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree. Thames Valley police are taking decisions about how to make savings and work more efficiently in many areas so that they can protect the front line, and that is what forces up and down the country are doing. A good example is the collaboration between Thames Valley police and Hampshire police on a range of functions. That is the sort of thing we want to see extended across the country.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on police cuts in London, can he explain why the Mayor, Boris Johnson, is cutting 1,800 officers in the next two years from London’s police force, including 300 sergeants, which will result in cuts to local safer neighbourhood teams? The Mayor is also proposing to reduce the minimum number of officers in each safer neighbourhood team from the current level of six, and I have seen a letter from one commander stating that police community support officers will not be replaced as they become fully-fledged police officers. Does the Minister accept that safer neighbourhood teams in London face being cut by stealth? Should he not get to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the people of London, on behalf of the Government and the Mayor, for cutting the number of front-line police officers?

[Nick Herbert]

The Labour party simply cannot stand the fact that the Mayor of London has said that he will enter the next mayoral election with more police officers than he inherited. He has made that pledge and is protecting safer neighbourhood teams. Of course there are sensible arrangements whereby some sergeants are being shared, but the number of officers in safer neighbourhood teams is being protected. It is possible, as the Mayor has shown, alongside the leadership of the Met, to protect front-line policing while having to deliver significant savings. The hon. Gentleman—