Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

The Government have legislated for same-sex marriages and were the first Government ever to address that question. I cannot anticipate the announcement at the end of the review. We are currently assessing the many responses to the consultation, as the hon. Lady would expect. We are committed to producing the report, and after that I will be happy to go into details of what the Government plan to do next.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

An immensely strong case was made for humanist marriages during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. On that occasion, the Government chose to duck the issue, but the question is not just on same-sex marriages but humanist marriages overall. The example of Scotland, where more than a third of marriages are conducted by humanists, is overwhelming. Can we please get on with this before the end of this Administration?

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that in Scotland humanist weddings are permitted, and that has been the case since 2005. The Scottish system is entirely different from that in England and Wales because it is based on who officiates, rather than the place where the marriage takes place. It will be a major change in our law to go down that road. As I said, I will report to the House before the end of the year.

Prison Communications

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the measured way in which he has responded to the issue. Let me answer his questions in turn. The Wilson doctrine applies to intercept activity, so the routine monitoring of calls of this kind, while not within the prison rules, is not covered by the Wilson doctrine.

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on the number of prisons. We have been able to identify the number of calls and MPs, but that has been done through telephone records, so I do not yet have information on the origins of the calls and the number of prisons. I expect we will see more information about that as the inquiry progresses.

I have as yet seen no evidence that information was passed on to anyone else. I do not believe that this was part of a concerted attempt to monitor; it was simply part of the routine checking of the process to make sure that nothing untoward was going on. Clearly, however, that is something I will ask Nick Hardwick to confirm.

I believe that all recordings have been destroyed—they are kept for only a limited period—but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any have survived, which I do not believe to be the case, they certainly will be destroyed.

Work relating to ex-Members of Parliament has not been done, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will ask that question and notify them. Until now, it has been a question of cross-referencing current Members of Parliament in order to identify issues.

On solicitors, I have asked Nick Hardwick to look at the full range of confidential calls. The reality is that occasionally mistakes will be made in a large organisation dealing with such issues. The total number of calls handled by the Prison Service over this period is about 16 million, so I will be up front with the House and say that occasionally mistakes will be made. I want Nick Hardwick to make sure that we have every possible safeguard in place to make sure that this cannot happen as a matter of routine.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about rule 39 mail. I do not have any evidence that such mail has been inappropriately intercepted. We keep rule 39 under regular surveillance and review. Although it is of paramount importance that it remains a conduit for prisoners to receive confidential material from their solicitors and to send such material to them, he will know that there have equally been suggestions over the years that rule 39 has been abused. I try to make sure that we continue to monitor it properly and respect its confidentiality, but governors are instructed to look at it if they have reason to believe—they must have such a reason—that rule 39 is being misused.

On the audit trail before 2006, we have looked at this practice from 2006. It may predate 2006, but the work that has been done with BT simply covered the period from 2006 onwards.

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern: in all aspects of what we do, it should be possible to have confidential conversations with constituents. Something has clearly gone wrong, and I need to rectify it. It goes back over many years, but it needs to be rectified now, and I assure the House that it will be.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement and, of course, the Department on putting him in a position to make the statement so speedily after the information was made available to him. However, the key point is that no actions appear to have followed cases of monitoring, and that there was no strategy in the Department of overseeing MPs’ conversations. In reality, this is not perhaps a hugely important issue, provided it can be confirmed that no action was taken as a result of calls being monitored in the normal way. Such calls will not be monitored under the new system, and we should all be grateful to him for the extra casework that we will get.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. I see no evidence that this practice was part of an attempt to gain and pass on pieces of information. It is a very large and complicated system, with a very large number of people. My first impression is that this practice was the result of a series of errors, but that does not make it acceptable. I will of course ask Nick Hardwick to confirm that it was the result of a series of errors, and to make sure that it does not happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As a result of the reforms to the probation service, the criminal justice system will save money in the coming years as reoffending is brought down. It has for a long time been a travesty that those who go to jail for less than 12 months receive no supervision, support or mentoring at all when they leave. If we could just bring reoffending levels among that group down closer to the rates of those who do receive support and supervision, we would see a massive reduction in the costs of our justice system.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Integrated offender management, working between the police and probation, is a proven way of helping to reduce reoffending and improving the work of the probation service. What is my right hon. Friend doing to bring the role of police and crime commissioners closer together with that of the probation service?

[Chris Grayling]

In the tendering process we required the bidders to take into account and demonstrate how they would reflect the local policing and police and crime commissioner priorities to ensure that we have a joined-up system. In a world of payment by results, if a local integrated offender management system is working well, it would be crazy for those involved in probation not to seek to take part in it if it would reduce crime levels, reduce reoffending and help them improve what they do.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He makes a very good point. That is one of the things that we need to look at carefully in considering whether to pursue the ideas that my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bury North are putting forward in new clause 34. We will continue to do that work and to keep the legal framework under careful review. However, I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the new clause today.

New clause 35 seeks to extend the offence in section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004—causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm—so that it applies to causing or allowing any person to die or suffer serious physical harm. I understand that the intention of my hon. Friends is to create a new form of joint enterprise offence. As they will readily recognise, the law on joint enterprise is complex. It forms part of the common law on secondary liability and requires a common purpose between two or more people, resulting in each of them being liable for any offences which might be committed in pursuit of, or as a consequence of, that common purpose.

The offence under section 5 of the 2004 Act, by contrast, is not an offence of joint enterprise. Under the section 5 offence, the person who allows the death or serious physical harm is liable on the basis that he or she failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably be expected to take to protect the victim from a foreseeable risk of serious physical harm, and not necessarily because he or she shared some common purpose with the person who caused the death or serious physical harm.

The important point about the section 5 offence is that it applies only to members of a victim’s household who had frequent contact with the victim, and could therefore reasonably be expected to have been aware of a risk of serious physical harm to the victim, and to have protected the victim from such harm. The offence therefore covers domestic situations in which members of the household may feel under pressure to remain silent to protect themselves and other members of the household.

I am not persuaded that it would be right to extend section 5 in the way that is suggested, not least because it is not an offence of joint enterprise. Moreover, the Government in 2004 deliberately limited the section 5 offence to the special circumstances that pertain when a person, whether a child or a vulnerable adult, who particularly needs the protection of the law is within the sanctuary of their own home. It has been used successfully in a number of cases, most notably that of baby Peter Connelly. We believe that such circumstances deserve special and extraordinary measures that are separate from the norm.

In addition, the section 5 offence does not require the person who allowed the death or serious physical harm to have been present at the time of the unlawful act, but simply to have been a member of the same household who had frequent contact with the victim, and could therefore reasonably be expected to have been aware of a risk of serious physical harm to the victim. If the allower had to be present at the time of the unlawful act, as the new clause requires, it would raise more difficult evidential requirements for the prosecution in a baby P-type case. My hon. Friends’ new clause would therefore detract from the usefulness of the offence in the specific circumstance at which it is aimed, and it would not necessarily be workable in a wider context. For that reason, I am afraid I cannot accept it.

New clause 36 would change the scope of the offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress to others by using

“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,”

meaning that “insulting” words or behaviour are no longer captured. My hon. Friends’ intention may be to bring that section of the 1986 Act in line with a similar amendment to section 5 of that Act, which came into effect earlier this year. There are, however, significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious and deliberate offence made out under section 4A. The latter requires proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that such harassment, alarm and distress were actually caused to another person. Those differentiating features make it much more serious and significantly raise the threshold of what must be proved. In the light of that higher threshold, the Government do not agree that excluding “insulting” words or behaviour is justified.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in the change to section 5, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups because the police had more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under section 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it does not seem sensible to remove the protections provided by retaining “insulting” in relation to words and behaviour in section 4A.

For new clauses 6 and 7 I pay tribute not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)—to whom generous tribute was paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois)—but, preventing his modesty from excluding the facts, to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North. He has done a huge amount to raise awareness of knife crime concerns, and few people in this place have done more to enhance the safety of the communities they represent, and indeed other communities, by a single-minded focus on this issue.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have done their bit on this subject. We have a comprehensive plan in place under the ending gang and youth violence programme, and—in no small measure down to his efforts—we extended new offences of threatening with a knife or offensive weapon in a public place or a school to young people as well as adults, and introduced a minimum sentence for those offences. We have stopped simple cautions being used for possession of a knife in the absence of exceptional circumstances, and as he knows, we are legislating further on cautioning in the Bill. We have taken this issue seriously throughout, and will continue to do so.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

When some of those measures were passed, full consideration was given to their consequences. What would be the consequences for the prison population of accepting new clauses 6 and 7?

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend and distinguished predecessor will understand better than most, these are not Government new clauses and therefore they do not come with the same assessments. He will appreciate that the two different new clauses would have different effects, but if the House of Commons decides that those changes should play a part in the Bill, we will make all the necessary assessments. He will also understand that the Government’s clear policy is to ensure that the right people are in prison and that the courts have the opportunity to send the right people to prison whenever they deem that appropriate. The way to deal with and reduce the prison population is, very straightforwardly, to ensure that reoffending is reduced and that people do not continue to return to custody. My hon. Friend began the good work in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I do not understand how my hon. Friend can vigorously oppose new clause 34, despite its evident merits—and on which I unusually agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—because it has not been fully considered, and not come out with a similar line about the cost of the measures before us, which ought to be part of our full consideration before we make our decision.

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that if he is in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he does have me worried. He will appreciate that the arguments on new clause 34 are rather broader than its cost implications. As I have set out already, we cannot accept it at this stage for several reasons, and that is different from a specifically cost-related calculation.

I note that new clauses 6 and 7 contain some minor, technical flaws that would need to be addressed if either were to receive the approval of the House today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North knows, his objectives have considerable support among Conservative Members. However, as he also knows, although both coalition parties are fully committed to protecting the public, policy agreement has not been reached on these new clauses, so it will be for the whole House to decide on the conclusion to this debate. So that that debate may continue, I shall finally say that I hope that the House will support—

Prison Overcrowding

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proportion of positive drug tests in our prisons has fallen sharply in recent years; that is to be encouraged. I am confident that Oakwood’s upcoming inspection report will show a significant improvement. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a Welsh MP; one of the Welsh prisons—Parc, a large new prison that had some teething problems—has turned into one of the best performing prisons in the estate. I am confident that the same thing will happen to Oakwood.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend should be commended on the energetic way that he, in an unprotected Department, has sought to contribute to meeting the Government’s wider economic objectives. He is entirely right that the overcrowding crisis was inherited in 2010, but is it not about time that we started thinking about the long term—about addressing the issue of the 20,000 prisoners who are in overcrowded conditions—and began to look properly at reconstituting a privatisation programme, so that we can have better-manned prisons with more efficiency for the taxpayer?

[Chris Grayling]

The approach that we have taken on privatisation has been to privatise individual services in the way that was recommended by the Prison Governors Association, because we needed to drive through savings quickly across the whole estate, rather than across part of it, but my hon. Friend’s point is sensible. I do not want a prison population the size of the one we have, but nor do I ever want a court to be unable to send an offender to prison when it believes that it should do so. That is why our rehabilitation strategy is so important. The way we will bring down the population of our prison estate is by preventing people from coming back to it, rather than by not locking them up in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend is drawing comparisons about the costs of cases, will he try to make sure that the income that will be expected to accrue to the various barristers taking part in those cases is considered, rather than the totality of costs, as it can be difficult to make a sensible judgment about what is fair and unfair?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to be very careful. Of course the gross fees that are cited include VAT and chambers’ fees, but those barristers also derive benefits from being self-employed that counteract some of the reductions they experience, because they can offset many other parts of their expenditure and overheads against tax in a way that employed people would not be able to do.

Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend has a point. I do not want to broaden the debate to include all police issues, but he is right. ACPO is badly constituted and should never have been set up in the way that it was. There are signs that ACPO should have done more to lead firmly. We saw that in the west midlands cases, where the various chief constables were perhaps not as strong in upholding justice as they should have been.

That brings me to the federation itself. I am talking primarily about the national federation, but also about some of the regions. I say that because some of the local federation organisations do a very good job on very thin resources to represent, as they properly should, the interests of their members.

Nevertheless, there are many criticisms to level at the federation, including that it is inefficient and wasteful. There is a duplication of tasks and structures. It is profligate, spending its members’ money on grace and favour flats and on huge bar bills. It is badly governed, with no apparent strong leadership to guarantee direction and stability. It behaves in a manner that sometimes brings police forces into disrepute by pursuing personal and political vendettas—the sort of things to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has referred—against prominent public persons and bodies, and legal actions against private citizens, sometimes even the victims of crime.

After the Police Federation’s attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the view of the public, and damningly of the federation’s members, was that the federation had to change.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Given my right hon. Friend’s reference to our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), will he comment on today’s front page of The Times, which I am sure he has seen?

[Mr Davis]

I do not want to widen the debate and have a rerun of the Mitchell case, but I should say a couple of things about it. The House knows full well that I did not approve of the Leveson process—I strongly believe in a free press—but even I am astonished that, after Leveson, a police force has yet again leaked with an incredible spin a confidential document to which the victim in the case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, has not had access. First, I expect the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to have a proper leak inquiry into that—I have told him that this morning. Secondly, an astonishing interpretation was put on the leak. The leak shows that an officer, four hours after attempting to stop my right hon. Friend going through the main gates of Downing street—this did not happen in a panic or a rush and was premeditated—wrote to his seniors not to say, “We have a security issue. Will somebody please have a conversation with Mr Mitchell to ensure he understands that we cannot let him through?”, which would have been the proper thing to do and what hon. Members would have done, but to set up a circumstance in which the situation would be resolved by a public confrontation at the front gate after the officer had ensured that his seniors supported him in doing so. If anything, that reinforces the story we were told by an anonymous whistleblower that this was a premeditated action. Today’s press coverage is not a good reflection on the police in two ways: it undermines their main case and it is something that they simply should not have done under these circumstances.

If the House will forgive me, I will try not to rest too much on the Mitchell case, because it is just one of many in which we have reason to be concerned about the role of the federation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). I hope that I will not have to detain the House for too long, as the tenor of my remarks will be completely consistent with everything that has already been said. The direction of travel is extremely clear.

Like the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I have taken part in the parliamentary police scheme and have seen at first hand in both London and Surrey the terrific work that officers do on the front line. I want to pick up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South: 91% of officers want change in their federation. That is an utterly devastating figure. I commend Steve Williams, the chairman of the Police Federation, who, as far as I can tell—I am not as close to these people as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee—appears to be the driving force in seeking change and commissioning this report.

Let us be in no doubt: the report is utterly devastating. Its authors—Sir David Normington, Sir Brendan Barber, Sir Denis O’Connor and others—are people of enormous public standing who are worthy of our greatest respect. The devastating detail of the report is reflected in stories that are coming out about the federation’s actions, such as the discomfiting behaviour of its representatives on memorial day and the astonishing financial excess whereby £35 million or more in No. 2 accounts is not properly accounted for. I am delighted that the Home Affairs Committee will follow up the report, especially through an inquisition on the use of public money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) suggested that police officers should receive a dividend from their federation by having their funds returned. The amount involved would be pretty substantial—£500 per police officer—but in these straitened times, the taxpayer probably has an interest, so I hope that the Select Committee’s detailed inquiry will examine whether it would be proper for the taxpayer to receive some restitution.

The federation has completely and utterly failed not only the people it serves in the police, but in its public duty outlined in its founding Act—the Police Act 1919. The federation has a responsibility to the whole country. If the representatives of the police are seen as rotten, what conclusion are we meant to draw about the police force itself? When we go out on the front line, we have the opportunity to see the police at first hand, so we know that most of the time they are doing a difficult job extremely well. It can be difficult to deal with members of the public who demand the highest standards of their police force, but that is precisely the standard that we should expect.

There have been huge strides forward in policing over the past two or three decades. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 brought about a profound change in policing, as did the reaction to the Macpherson report and the way in which senior officers have tried to lead on the culture of the police. However, in policing, as is the case in the federation, pockets of resistance remain, as do old-fashioned approaches that are simply unacceptable in this day and age. The federation must be a proper representative of all its officers, but it has comprehensively failed in that task.

Let me reinforce the message about the scale of legal actions taken by the federation. It is truly frightening that people can be intimidated so they do not properly criticise and complain about our police force as a result of legal actions initiated by the federation. The situation is so rotten that I understand that, informally within the federation, police officers are encouraged to bring actions that are known as garage or extension actions because the officers end up with a new garage or extension as a benefit of being persuaded to take legal action. Stories also circulate about the incentives that law firms offer policemen to take action. I hope that the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry will cover such practice on legal action which, frankly, stinks and has an especially unhappy consequence if it makes the police seem to be as defensive and backward looking as the federation has been in its attitude to the public and dealing with straightforward requirements of substantial police reform. I hope that there will be at least restraint on decisions about whether legal action should be taken. Perhaps the Police Federation’s insurers should make decisions about whether actions should take place, rather than federation officials themselves aggressively pursuing actions by using their members’ and, no doubt, public money.

There are plainly one or two people in the federation’s senior leadership who are trying to do the right thing, which was why they commissioned this extremely authoritative report, and their evidence to the Home Affairs Committee is that they intend to deliver on all the recommendations. We have heard further ideas during the debate and there will no doubt be more. However, we should be absolutely clear that if the federation does not deliver on the reforms required by the report, it will fall to us to do so for it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I express my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who was its principal proposer, and to my 12 colleagues and both Front-Bench speakers who have contributed to it?

I contribute as a former special adviser in the Home Office during the rocky times with the Police Federation in 1992-93, when the then Home Secretary was trying to push through the Sheehy reforms. More recently, I was shadow police Minister in the previous Parliament. I am also contributing, and I declare an interest, as a friend and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whose treatment by certain elements of the Police Federation led ultimately to this debate and to discussion of the Normington report.

The Normington report is a scathing and searing deconstruction of a deeply dysfunctional organisation, and if there is a more critical report commissioned by a body of itself, I have yet to see it. The “top-to-bottom” overhaul of the organisation—those are the words of Normington—refers to

“its cultures, behaviours, structures and organisation”,

and I wish to emphasise at the start of my remarks that we should not allow this matter to become a cosy understanding with the Police Federation that it will reform itself. I have been in this place too long to see well-argued and important reports lost. Everyone agrees that the recommendations should be carried out, but then they plough into the sand. That is why I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that he would not shrink from using the legislative tools at his disposal to ensure that the necessary reforms and recommendations in the report are implemented if the federation does not get on with doing that itself.

The report refers to

“a phased programme of reform over the next two to three years,”.

I would like the federation to publish a clear timetable that we can come back to and debate in this Chamber, to see how quickly it is implementing the reforms. The reason we need that is that Fiona McElroy, a former principal private secretary to the Attorney-General, no less, was sacked because she had “serious concerns” about the management of the federation’s accounts. Most troubling is that—this was only a few days ago—she was opposed by a “vocal minority” who were resisting attempts to implement the changes recommended by the Normington report. I am afraid I am not as sanguine as many colleagues who have contributed today about the ability of senior members of the Police Federation to reform themselves. Who are these individuals and to whom are they accountable? Given the evidence I have cited, they seem to be a roadblock to reform.

[Mr Blunt]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ruffley]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way as I am aware of the time.

The report mentions many things, but it begins by mentioning the police reform proposals—not just those by our excellent Home Secretary, but I think this would also apply to some of the reforms at the end of the previous Parliament—and states that the federation was

“a weak voice in the discussions around reforms.”

Speaking from experience, I found that too many senior leaders of the Police Federation were—and I regret to have to say this—much more interested in pay and rations, remuneration and pension changes, important though those are, than in changes to police working practices, reducing police bureaucracy, and all the things that are central to modernising the police service today.

On accountability and ethics, Normington has quite a bit to say:

“Throughout our inquiry we have heard allegations that some Federation representatives…have personally targeted successive Home Secretaries, Andrew Mitchell, Tom Winsor and others”,

Colleagues have mentioned that issue, but I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said. He reminded us of the constitutional position that the police service—and, by extension, the Police Federation—has in this country. It has a constitutional responsibility to be utterly impartial, to make judgments and decisions free from political interference or bias, and to do so without fear or favour. It should be beyond politics, but the history of the Police Federation over the past few years shows that that constitutional obligation to which my hon. Friend referred has not been fulfilled.

Then there are the views of the elected representatives and the people who run the organisation. Normington states:

“There was considerable evidence of distrust among elected representatives, exacerbated by divisions and mistrust at Head Office”

in Leatherhead.

What about the professionalism that we need to engender in the Police Federation and the change of culture? That is the subject of recommendation 1, which hon. Members have drawn attention to, and which I think is worth reading into the record:

“The Federation should adopt immediately a revised core purpose which reflects the Police Federation’s commitment to act in the public interest, with public accountability, alongside its accountability to its members. This should be incorporated in legislation as soon as practicable.”

I disagree with only one bit of that: it should not be “as soon as practicable” but now.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said in his outstanding opening speech that we need an early adoption of the report, not this May when the Police Federation’s triennial elections are held. Before those elections we need a clear statement from anyone seeking to stand for office in May that they will adopt and sign up to every one of the Normington proposals. Without that, I think we are entitled to feel that they are not acting in good faith. There is unanimity across the party divide, including from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) speaking for the Opposition, and who made a helpful speech, and from Conservative Members. It is perfectly clear, beyond peradventure, that no one can have any doubt about the necessity of these proposals.

We also need to remember the phrase “Follow the money”, although we should not read too much into the fact that it comes from the Watergate scandal. If I have gleaned anything from the debate, it is colleagues’ comments—they have obviously read the report—on the financial opacity and the scandalous lack of accountability, not only in respect of members’ subscription fees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, but of the taxpayer money that goes into the Police Federation, which, as has been mentioned, is a statutory body. Surpluses have been generated at national level and substantial reserves have been amassed. They put the organisation on a sustainable footing, but, by the way, that is largely the result of an increase in subscription charges of more than 23% in 2010 alone.

That is not the end of it. The 43 branch boards operate as separate businesses. Together, they have reserves of approximately £35 million. The report raises concerns about the lack of accountability. After its publication, I heard Sir David Normington say that although he was brought in by the Police Federation to undertake an independent forensic review, he was denied access to the No. 2 accounts. Who denied him access? We should be told. Why were there any bars on his looking into the No. 2 accounts? It is why recommendation 31 is:

“All accounts including Number 2, group insurance and member services accounts, funds, and trusts to be published. A general financial transparency clause is needed in regulations”

for which, I might add, the House will have responsibility,

“including a requirement to publish and report all income that derives from and funds Police Federation activity.”

Normington also says that all branches should be required to publish full accounts online. Those of us who are subject to the rigorous Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority regime will say that it is about time they did that. I very much look forward to that so I can look up the accounts of the branches in my part of East Anglia.

Recommendation 36, on finance, states:

“There should be a 25 percent reduction in subscription levels for one year in 2015 financed by the reserves of the rank central committees. An extension of this one-off reduction should be reviewed for subsequent years on the basis of existing reserves, reserves in unpublished accounts, and an estate strategy once the reform package is complete.”

The report demonstrates that a review could mean further reductions in the subscription levy. I believe that members of the federation should actively consider that and hold their elected representatives to account. In that respect, I want to steal a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) who, in an excellent speech, reminded us of a great tradition of the Police Federation and some of its good history, but also said that now is the time for its members to reclaim their federation. Subscription levels would not be a bad place to start.

On the estates strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that, ultimately, the sale and disposal of that palace of varieties, which has cost excessive amounts of money to build and run, could be a sign of true culture change on the part of the federation—the kind of change of ethos for which the report so powerfully calls.

I should like to comment on a few of the speeches that have been made in the debate that are worthy of note. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) repeated something that many colleagues have said. He said that recent events have shown that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has been completely vindicated. The right hon. Gentleman also questioned whether it was remotely sensible, appropriate or seemly to continue suing members of the public, including my right hon. Friend.

We heard eloquent contributions from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate reminded us that there could be a £500 per member dividend, but asked whether restitution could be made to the British taxpayer, who will have an interest in those huge sums, many of which are not accounted for.

My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke from huge experience as forensic members of the Home Affairs Committee. Both talked about the lack of accountability in financial accounting. They also said that many public services have been reformed, but that the way in which the police do business has not been reformed. I pray in aid a phrase used in 2006 by the current Prime Minister. I was speaking to Police Federation Members when the Prime Minister said that the police service is

“the last great unreformed public service”.

My word, they did not like that, but reform should be a reality. They should not fight history but embrace the future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who pointed out that reform of the interoperability of the blue-light services requires the Police Federation to get with the programme.

I conclude with one observation. The Police Federation must not be a roadblock to reform. It must not block either Her Majesty’s Government’s policy programme of reform or reform of itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Independent Review of the Police Federation conducted by Sir David Normington and calls upon the Government to take action to implement the report’s recommendations and to reform the Police Federation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

There are certainly no barriers as far as I am concerned. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of registered intermediaries. As she knows, as well as introducing a victims code, we are taking other steps to help particularly vulnerable victims of the type that she has described, which include the introduction of changes in the way in which they can give evidence. In some cases video evidence can be used, and we are consulting on how to surmount the problems posed by the multiple cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in other cases. Obviously, we will continue that work.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

One of the Government’s objectives is to ensure that victims receive much more compensation and restoration from offenders themselves. What progress is being made in that regard?

[Damian Green]

I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that we are making significant progress. Increased use of the victim surcharge means that more money is available for victims’ services than ever before, and we hope in time to double the amount that is currently available from £50 million to £100 million. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that the extra money will come from offenders themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The most important part of the way the new system will work will be the co-location of individuals in the national probation service who are responsible for risk management and the new community rehabilitation companies, to ensure that where risk does change there is a swift transition from one to the other.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In the Secretary of State’s target operating model for probation there is welcome mention of restorative justice. Can he say anything more to ensure that awareness of restorative justice across the system is so embedded that it becomes an option to be considered on all occasions, particularly to deliver much-improved victim support as well as the rehabilitative effect it has already demonstrated?

[Chris Grayling]

We very much recognise the importance of restorative justice. We are providing funding to police and crime commissioners to enable them to source restorative justice services locally, and give them the option of working closely with providers who will look after offenders in the future. We are keen to see that partnership work well at a local level, and for that resource to be used to good effect in mitigating the impact of crime on victims in the way restorative justice can do so well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these matters are currently being considered by the Serious Fraud Office. He will therefore understand that it would not be legally appropriate to publish items being considered by the SFO until it has completed its consideration.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be more than aware of the importance of private sector suppliers to the Ministry of Justice in delivering his strategic objectives of greater efficiency and better use of public money. He will also know that those suppliers are responsible for the more efficient and innovative delivery of the whole justice agenda, so will he be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and remember the terrific role that the private sector has played in achieving enormous savings for the taxpayer, which will dwarf any of the issues that he is dealing with? Will he also ensure that no mistakes are made either by the contracting departments in the Ministry of Justice or by the suppliers?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on both those points. It is important to remember that, notwithstanding the issues that have arisen, a large number of the people working for private contractors on behalf of the Government are doing a very good job for us. It is ironic that, before the Labour party returned to its socialist roots in the past few weeks, it too used to believe in outsourcing to the private sector. It has clearly changed its mind now; that is all part of the trip back to the days of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.