Police

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I rather agree with the right hon. Lady’s underlying point. Indeed, I will speak later about precisely such ideas for collaboration not only between police forces—I will shortly come on to the many good examples of that—but between the police and other blue light services and between the police and local government.

I assure the right hon. Lady, who used to stand at this Dispatch Box doing my very job, that one of the more enjoyable parts of the role is visiting. For example, I recently went to Thrapston in Northamptonshire to visit a joint police and fire station: one building provides two emergency blue light services, which means not only that a better service is provided to the people in and around Thrapston, but that the two emergency services, as they have told me, work better together than they did before. She is absolutely right to say that this is a time for creative thinking, and I hope to reveal during my speech some of the creative activity that is happening in police forces in this country.

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

The Minister has just said that the police service has been protected by this settlement. It is certainly true that the service has been protected from the additional budget reductions scheduled for 2014-15. Is it not also true, however, that the Home Office has indicated that money will be taken from forces to fund a range of new initiatives—we strongly support some of them, such as the College of Policing—with the consequence that forces will face a 4.8% cut, rather than the 3.3% grant reduction originally anticipated? Those top-slices will therefore reduce the amount of grant funds available to individual forces to use at their discretion.

[Damian Green]

One of the top-slices was, for example, for the police innovation fund, which is available to all forces. I am happy to say that all forces applied in the first round—off the top of my head, I think that there were 115 applications altogether—and every force will get some benefit from that.

Furthermore, the point of the innovation fund is precisely to encourage the kind of collaboration mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). That is precisely the sort of creative use of the inevitably constrained pot of taxpayers’ money for spending on the police—let us not forget that it is still £8.5 billion—in the most effective way possible, aiding collaboration and enabling the police to carry on with the successful policies they have pursued during the past few years, which have continued to cut crime.

Central Government funding for the police will be reduced by 3.3% in cash terms in 2014-15, while overall funding will be reduced by even less, when the future police precept is factored in. We have also protected funding for counter-terrorism policing, due to the continuing threat posed to the UK by terrorism. To give the House a comparison, the remaining Home Office budget will be cut by 7% in cash terms in 2014-15.

This funding settlement is therefore challenging, but it is manageable. HMIC, the inspectorate, has made it clear that the proportion of officers working on the front line is increasing, and we are supporting the police through a range of activities to help them respond to the challenge and ultimately to emerge stronger. As I said at the outset, we are also changing the policing landscape in a way that represents the biggest set of reforms for a generation.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister has just referred to front-line police officers. Will he confirm that in excess of 10,000 police officers have gone from the front line since 2010?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend gives an example from another part of the country, which is similar to the examples I have seen in the past few months. He illustrates my point that collaboration is necessary at a time when public finances are under stringent control and that it can lead to better services than we had when the public spending tap was turned on more fully. That led to inefficiencies and a lack of collaboration.

[Jack Dromey]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman just one more time, because he will have his own turn to speak in a minute.

[Jack Dromey]

To speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I sat in on a meeting of the Tameside community safety partnership before Christmas. On the one hand, I saw inspiring innovation and effective collaboration. On the other hand, I heard an unmistakable message from the police service, the local authority and the other agencies that such was the scale of the cuts hitting Greater Manchester councils that not only was the thin blue line being stretched ever thinner, but the fabric of partnership working was being stretched ever further, putting at risk their ability to fight crime effectively in the area.

[Damian Green]

I can only repeat what I said earlier to the shadow policing Minister. Given that the shadow Chancellor has said,

“The next Labour government will have to plan on the basis of falling departmental spending”,

the shadow Minister is facing the very problem that he seeks to point out. I therefore hope that he will not give false messages to the people of Tameside and elsewhere that, in the unlikely event that the British people hand the car keys back to those who crashed the car in the first place, he will have a new pot of taxpayers’ money. According to the shadow Chancellor, he will not.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me make two preliminary points. First, hon. Members were here earlier for a powerful debate on the Floor of the House about Hillsborough, and it is absolutely right that where there is wrongdoing, those who are guilty of such wrongdoing are held fully and properly to account. Secondly, I agree with the Minister when he says that a progressive reform agenda—progressive is my word, not his—is a good thing and should be embraced. That is precisely why we commissioned the Stevens report and I will say more on that later. I agree with the Minister on the proposal to professionalise the police service progressively, with chartered police officers accountable to the College of Policing, a lifelong career and personal development.

Let me turn to the issue of Hillsborough and how our police service is sometimes painted. I agree with both the Home Secretary and the Police Minister when they say that it would be absolutely wrong to paint the entire police service with the brush of a very small minority guilty of wrongdoing. I want to start by paying tribute to the brave policemen and women up and down the country who put their lives on the line day in, day out to keep our communities safe; police officers like Ian Dibell who have given their lives for their community and this country. In my constituency I have seen the outstanding bravery of police officers—for example, tackling armed robbers—and the very best of neighbourhood policing. The Stockland Green neighbourhood police team is an award-winning team. Five years ago, the North Birmingham academy in Kingstanding was riven with gang violence. The school has been utterly transformed by the excellent co-operation between the new leadership of the school and the local police service.

The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of the communities we serve. In government, Labour listened to what people wanted and to what the police said. We invested in neighbourhood policing: 17,000 additional police officers who know their communities and 16,000 additional police community support officers. Neighbourhood policing worked: it proved to be deeply popular and crime fell by 43%. Today, however, as a direct result of the actions of this Government, there is a real fear that we risk a generation of progress being reversed.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was a local councillor, one of the biggest issues on the doorstep was the remoteness of the police. One of the biggest advantages of the introduction of neighbourhood policing was that people finally started to feel an affinity with their local bobby and their police community support officers. Is he aware that we are seeing neighbourhood policing teams covering larger geographical areas with fewer police officers and PCSOs? Those complaints about the remoteness of the police are starting to come back.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of neighbourhood policing is the notion of local policing: roots in the local community, the community knowing who their police officers are and being able to identify with them and develop relationships with them, both in terms of providing evidence of wrongdoing and diverting people from crime—preventing crime in the first place. The intimacy of those local relationships is of the highest importance. At our peril do we go down the path of moving away from the notion of neighbourhood policing and towards remote police officers touring areas in their cars when what the neighbourhood wants to see is that presence on their streets.

[Hazel Blears]

I was the Minister responsible for bringing in neighbourhood policing, which, in its day, was very controversial. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways forward ought to be even more radical? We should integrate response policing and neighbourhood policing, so that instead of having two strands in our policing framework we can ensure that the underlying principles of neighbourhood policing are what drives the whole of our police service.

[Jack Dromey]

My right hon. Friend, with her formidable experience and the remarkable achievement of building modern policing, is right to make a strong argument in favour of that kind of integration. I pay tribute to her work in government. The lasting legacy is neighbourhood policing that this country so rightly prizes, albeit that the thin blue line is now being stretched ever thinner.

[Andrew Percy]

I am little surprised at what I am hearing, given that it was during the previous Government and under the chairmanship of a local Labour councillor that Humberside police got rid of its neighbourhood policing teams, got rid of local instant response teams in neighbourhood areas and created much bigger local policing teams that were not on a ward basis. I do not recall any opposition from anybody in the Labour party, locally or nationally, when that happened, so I am surprised at what I am hearing today. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the position of the Labour party is to support what it did when it was in power, or is this a new policy?

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I do not know the details of the issue he raises. What I do know is that, as I go up and down the country—on 50 occasions, arising out of the Stevens report—the message I get from police officers, communities and partnership agencies is that they value what the Labour Government built. That is coming under increasing pressure as a consequence of what this Government are doing.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

However we term policing on the beat—as neighbourhood policing, or anything else—as a former soldier I know that being on the ground is the most effective form of gathering intelligence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is what people want: police officers on the ground 24 hours a day where they can be seen?

[Jack Dromey]

I totally agree. It is the most effective form of local policing in terms of detection of crime and diverting people from crime. It is also key to the detection of very serious wrongdoing. For example, in the city I am proud to represent, Birmingham, there has been a large number of terrorist crime convictions. Some involved hi-tech monitoring, but in most cases the detection of wrongdoers came about through good neighbourhood policing and the development of local relationships; in this case, predominantly with the Muslim community. As a consequence of that co-operation, those guilty of the threat or actual commission of terrorist crime were brought to book. Whether it is a local burglary or a terrorist crime that threatens our community, there is no substitute for the local policing that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies.

[David T. C. Davies]

I agree with a lot of what the shadow Minister is saying. That community presence is clearly very important, but surely there is also a role for police officers in vehicles being able to respond quickly to emergencies? That is something that the public also feel very strongly about.

[Jack Dromey]

Of course that is right. I made reference in passing to an example in my constituency. An armed robber on the run hijacked a car, pushing aside a terrified mother of two young children, who were still in the backseat, and drove off. The speed with which the armed response unit responded and apprehended that thug was outstanding. The thug is now where he richly deserves to be: behind bars serving a very long sentence. Hon. Members will excuse me if I try to move on from the paragraph of my speech that I have been on for the past five to 10 minutes, but I will be glad to take further interventions as appropriate.

Our central concern is that, as the thin blue line gets ever thinner, the Government’s 11th hour police grant report does nothing to stop the remorseless hollowing out of our police service, with more than 10,000 police officers already gone from the front line. The delay and infighting within the Government over the threshold by which a referendum would be required for an increase to the police element of council tax bills, has put police and crime commissioners and local authorities in an impossible position with only a month left to set their budget.

[Damian Green]

Before the hon. Gentleman skates over what is the heart of his argument and when he talks about the thinning out of the thin blue line and so on, is he committing a future Labour Government to spending more on the police?

[Jack Dromey]

Let me answer that straight up front. The Minister referred earlier to “Labour’s legacy”. If we look at what we achieved between 1997 and 2007, we reduced the debt to GDP ratio from 40.9%, which we inherited from the previous Government, to 36.4% and, in addition to all the other achievements that I see in my constituency—the health centres, the schools and the children centres—we put 17,000 police officers on the beat and 16,000 PCSOs with them. Then, after the 2007 crash, we faced up to the difficult circumstances confronting the country, and that is why the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), when he was Police Minister, said that economies were necessary. He embraced the proposal that a 12% cut could be achieved without affecting the frontline. Instead, the Government went too far, too fast, driving through a 20% cut with all the consequences that have flowed for the front line.

It is precisely because of the concern that has been widely expressed about the consequences for the police service generally, and for neighbourhood policing in particular, that we commissioned the Stevens report, which has proposed a progressive agenda and the rebuilding of neighbourhood policing. In the next Parliament, that will be one of our priorities.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Dromey]

In a moment. What we will not do is make a pledge in opposition for 3,000 additional police officers—the manifesto on which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) fought the election—and then come into government and cut 10,000 officers from the front line.

[Dr Huppert]

I missed the bit where the hon. Gentleman congratulated my force on recruiting constables, as it is currently doing. I also missed the bit where he answered the Minister’s question. Does he have any sort of commitment for the future or does he just have a magical wish list? I wish we had had the money for those 3,000 officers: unfortunately—as I am sure he knows—when we came into office the Government were having to borrow £1 for every £4 that they spent and we could not continue like that. I wish we had had a better inheritance.

[Jack Dromey]

The Liberal Democrats are part of a Government who inherited a growing economy. With the greatest of respect, we will take no lessons from a party that pledges the abolition of tuition fees and 3,000 additional police officers, and then props up a Government who impose unprecedented cuts on our police service.

Looking to the next Parliament, I have been very clear about what we did in the last Parliament and what we would do now. Now, as I will argue later, we would follow the 12% proposed—including by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—because that can be achieved without harming the front line, and we will go into the next general election as the party of neighbourhood policing. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for our proposals on how we intend to achieve that.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is tying himself in knots, so perhaps I can help him out. Can I take it from his evasions that the answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Minister is no?

[Jack Dromey]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help me. Has his party declared its manifesto on the police for the next Parliament? No, it has not. We will say to the country, “Judge us on our record.” Labour is the party of neighbourhood policing. Labour built neighbourhood policing and will defend it. The Government are undermining neighbourhood policing, and we will take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has laid out Labour’s commitment to neighbourhood policing. The blunt truth for my constituents is that the difference between the HMIC proposals for a 12% cut in waste and the Government proposals for a 20% cut to policing is the loss of Denton police station, the loss of Reddish police station, fewer bobbies, fewer PCSOs and a more remote police service.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is right. After the 2007 crash, all parties faced the question of how to make reasonable economies. The 12% proposal, which was carefully thought through and which we embraced, would not have put the front line at risk. A 20% cut has put the front line at risk. In addition, the fabric of partnership working is being stretched ever further and our communities are increasingly feeling the consequences.

The Government’s delay in announcing the threshold was unacceptable and has meant that police and crime commissioners were left in the ludicrous situation of having to propose their police precepts, under a statutory duty created by this Government, without knowing whether they would have the power to implement them. We have heard a lot about localism from the Government, but calls from police and crime commissioners for clarity about funding were repeatedly ignored in Whitehall.

Now that we have seen the settlement, I cannot say that it makes up for the hold-up by the Government. The Conservative party and their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, are cutting police funding by 20%. In the last three years, that has already resulted in the loss of more than 15,000 police officers. I have seen firsthand in Birmingham and the west midlands some of the finest police officers one would ever want to meet or work with forced out under the A19 rule.

The loss of 15,000 officers was more than the experts predicted and a higher number than HMIC said would be safe. But the Government plough on regardless with this settlement. It is not only wrong in itself: it is increasingly damaging police morale. The pressure being put on our police by these unsafe cuts is starting to take its toll. Just last weekend, we learned that 800 police officers are off work on full pay as a result of stress-related sickness, costing the taxpayer millions of pounds every year. Just last year, police officers took 250,000 days off because of stress-related illnesses, a 15% increase over the three years up to 2013. Chief constables are blaming staff cuts for the staggering rise in sick days for depression and other mental issues.

In government and in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the distinguished former police Minister, said that some reductions in expenditure were necessary, given the economic circumstances, but as hon. Members have said today, we agreed with HMIC that a cut of 12% could be achieved without harming front-line policing. As we said at the time—it is important to remember this—a reduction of 12% over a Parliament, and of around £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament, would have involved making tough choices if we were to succeed in protecting police numbers. Such tough choices included cuts in overtime, reform of procurement, collaboration, and altering shift patterns, but we believed then and believe now that that was the right approach, and that those savings were and are possible.

Conversely, the Government’s approach—they have ignored the HMIC advice and cut police funding by 20%—resulted in the loss overall of 15,383 police officers in the first three years of this Parliament, which is more than even the most apocalyptic predictions and proof that going beyond 12% meant cutting police officers, not waste, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said. The Home Secretary has said:

“Crucially, all the savings that I have set out can be made while protecting the quality of front-line services.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 714.]

She has repeatedly said that, but 10,460 bobbies have gone from our streets since the general election.

[Mr Ruffley]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concept that falls in crime are determined not only by the number of police officers on the beat, but by how they are organised? It is not just a numbers game.

[Jack Dromey]

I totally agree. Numbers are crucial, but how officers are best deployed is too. I have seen at first hand inspiring examples—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has seen the same in his constituency—of developing relationships with parts of the community in an intelligent way and doing things in a smart way with other partnership agencies, and of sharing buildings and back-office resources. That was at the heart of the 12% HMIC proposal—it said that we should be better and smarter, but cutting 20% is going too far, too fast, with unacceptable consequences for the front line.

[Mr Simon Burns]

If everything is as terrible and devastating as the hon. Gentleman says, why is crime falling?

[Jack Dromey]

I will come straight to that point. Precisely as a consequence of what has happened, there are worrying signs that crime, and especially violent crime, is starting to rise for the first time in nearly two decades. The latest crime figures show disturbing signs that a generation of progress in some areas is being reversed. For example, there is a worrying increase in muggings. Violence against the person has increased in 16 police force areas and violence without injury has increased in 19 police force areas. According to the British Retail Consortium, shoplifting, which is often associated with assaults on shop staff, is at a nine-year high.

Increasingly, the victims of crime are being let down as criminals get off scot-free—7,000 fewer crimes of violence have been solved under this Government. Despite a sharp increase in sexual crime, there has been a significant fall in the referral of cases to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution. Victims of the most heinous crimes are being let down.

On top of that, police forces are stretched to breaking point. They are taking up to 30% longer to respond to 999 calls and there was a reduction in overall crimes solved in 22 forces—nearly 14,000 more crimes were unsolved last year than when the Government came to power. In addition, crime is changing. Fraud has increased by 34%, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg, because much online crime goes unreported.

Despite those worrying indications that a generation of progress is being reversed, all we have heard from the Government is the constant assertion that crime is falling. However, the Government’s independent statistics watchdog has said that the statistics can no longer be relied on, and has downgraded its precious gold standard. The UK Statistics Authority chair, the eminent Sir Andrew Dilnot, has said that the more accurate the statistics become, the more likely it is that they will show that crime is rising. That is the result of three years of cutting too far and too fast, and yet here we are again. The Government refuse to see the damage being done by their reckless cuts to police and local authority budgets.

Not only Her Majesty’s Opposition are raising concerns. The Association of Chief Police Officers president, Sir Hugh Orde, has warned that we may now be at the tipping point—he has used those words. Tony Lloyd, the chair of the police and crime commissioners national body, and the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner—he is highly respected across the spectrum as a former Member of the House—has said:

“I have warned since before I was elected that the government’s reckless programme of cuts is endangering community safety…We are now standing at the edge of a cliff . The chief constable”—

the eminent Sir Peter Fahy—

“has told me that he cannot provide the levels of policing that Greater Manchester people expect and deserve”

in future. He adds that, if the cuts continue:

“There simply will not be enough money in the pot”

for the police to discharge their duties.

The independent commission on the future of policing, led by Lord Stevens—it is a royal commission in all but name—and on which some of the most eminent figures in police and crime sit, has sounded a warning bell about the future of neighbourhood policing, which has been hit hard by Government cuts.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Dromey]

Lord Stevens has said that we are in danger of returning to a

“discredited model of reactive policing”.

The hon. Member for Cambridge may choose to ignore those voices, but if the head of ACPO, the head of the PCCs and the former head of the Metropolitan police speak with one voice, they send an unmistakable message that there is cause for concern.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way finally. He talks of an independent commission. Is it appropriate and honest to do so when the website says clearly that the report is published on behalf of the Labour party? It says that the Labour party will place cookies on the computers of those who read it. Can he sustain the idea that the commission is independent?

[Jack Dromey]

Is the hon. Gentleman accusing Lord Stevens or any member of that commission of having a bias?

[Dr Huppert]

If the commission publishes a report that states clearly that it is published on behalf of the Labour party, it cannot be independent. The Labour party is not an independent body.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman reins back from impugning the integrity of the commission members. The shadow Home Secretary and the leader of the Labour party were absolutely right to listen to the widespread calls for what the Stevens commission became—a royal commission in all but name. It was 50 years since the last royal commission, and the police service required serious examination for the future in the 21st century. We were right to commission those eminent and responsible individuals, who produced a report independent of the Labour party. It challenges all political parties, but focuses on the growing concern in the crime and policing world at the Government’s direction of travel—the hon. Gentleman, having pledged 3,000 additional police officers, is propping them up.

It is not only police chiefs and the various people I have referred to who are raising concerns about the future of British policing. If the Minister stopped and listened to communities up and down the country, as I have been doing as part of our consultation arising from the Stevens report, he would hear their concerns loud and clear. He should talk to those in Coventry, Greater Manchester, Worcester or indeed Kent about neighbourhood policing, and they will say how crucial it is. He should talk to them about what is happening to neighbourhood policing, and they will rightly express their growing concern about that which they value and know from experience works.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I do not think my hon. Friend has been to see the Poets Corner residents association in Reddish, in the Stockport part of my constituency, but he might as well have been there, because the concerns he has just outlined are very much those it raised with me. In particular, its neighbourhood policing team is now far more remote; it is based in Stockport town centre, instead of at Reddish police station. Does my hon. Friend understand why those residents feel so isolated, on the edge of the borough, without an adequate local neighbourhood policing team?

[Jack Dromey]

Again, my hon. Friend speaks up admirably for his constituency, reflecting the concern I have seen on my visits for the Stevens consultation. Communities such as his have helped to build community policing, they value it and they want it to continue, but they are seeing it come apart at the seams, with the police becoming increasingly remote, often as a result of the cuts impacting on relationships with the police officers who serve their communities.

The first priority of policing is to fight crime, but it is not the only priority. If the Police Minister was to visit the Somerset levels and tell people there that the police are only crime fighters, they would be utterly uncomprehending. Yet the Home Secretary could not have been clearer when she said:

“cutting crime is the only test of a police force”.

Over the last few weeks, however, we have seen how important their wider role is. Their function, above all, is to build relationships, prevent crime, divert people from crime, detect crime and wrongdoing and bring those responsible to account, but, at times of disaster and crisis, they are also there to rebuild lives and communities. Their wider function, therefore, is of the highest importance.

The warning bells are sounding, and for that reason we are calling on the Government urgently to rethink the scale of their cuts and instead to set out a proper plan for police reform. We are now in the fourth year of this Parliament, and we are again debating a settlement that will damage the ability of police officers across the country to serve their communities. I want to stand up for the best of British policing and for our communities and their determination to fight crime. For that reason, we will vote against this settlement. It is the duty of us all in the House to fight for what our communities want and deserve—to be safe and secure in their homes and their streets and to see a continuation of the neighbourhood policing we built in government. For that reason, I urge all Members to vote with us in rejecting the Government’s plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I recommend membership of that Committee, if only for the chance to see the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) brandishing a firearm in a training exercise. There were photos of that.

I have some sympathy with the shadow Minister, because before I was elected to this place I was leader of the opposition on Cambridgeshire county council. It is incredibly tempting simply to say, “I would do everything better and I would spend more money on it,” without identifying what would be done better and particularly where the money would come from. On the council I forced my own group to make our annual proposals go through the same scrutiny process as the administration did, so that we would be forced to work out where the money would come from to pay for what we wanted to do. That meant that our proposals were far more coherent and were at least plausible ways of doing things.

While I have some sympathy with the shadow Minister, who said encouragingly that Labour would, in principle, spend more, without specifying how much more or where it would come from, I also have a sense of déjà vu. So far as I can recall, every year when we have had this debate—at least in the current Parliament—Opposition Members have made similar comments. They have said that too little money is being spent, and that we are about to see a huge increase in crime as a result. Every year, when crime has not increased, it has been suggested that it is about to increase, and that we simply need to wait a little longer.

[Jack Dromey]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I shall give way in a moment, will accept that we have, in fact, seen a reduction in crime, whether it is measured by police reporting or by the crime survey.

[Jack Dromey]

Let me make it absolutely clear that what the Opposition have said from the outset is that economies are necessary and can be achieved, and that we accepted expert advice on the 12% figure. The hon. Gentleman is part of a Government who have imposed a 20% cut. Has he apologised to those who elected him on the basis that he was going to put an additional 3,000 police officers on the beat?

[Dr Huppert]

Even in that intervention, the hon. Gentleman very carefully avoided saying where he would get the extra money. I think that we would all love to have more money to spend on policing, and, indeed, on almost everything that a Government do; the problem is where that money is to come from.

The hon. Gentleman also missed an opportunity to intervene earlier—this is relevant to the point that he raised just now—in order to congratulate Cambridgeshire constabulary, which in 2012-13 recruited 72 constables and 13 officers who transferred themselves to the area. I have not scaled up that number to cover the whole country, but it shows what can be achieved. I feel no need to apologise to the people of Cambridgeshire for the fact that we have been recruiting those extra police, and have been able to protect the front line in the county. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene again to give a clearer view of what he would cut in order to raise the extra money, but if he does not wish to do so, I shall move on to the more substantive aspects of the debate.

Let me begin by paying a tribute, which I think all Members would echo, to the work done by the vast majority of the police. They do a fantastic job day in, day out. Some times are easier than others, but most times are quite tough for police officers. It is a very hard job and it makes a big difference to people’s lives, whether it involves directly combating crime and catching criminals, or the much broader role that police officers play. I have always welcomed community policing, although I must say that I was slightly concerned when, back in the days when I was a councillor, one of the best community beat officers in my constituency, who had managed to halve the crime level in a single year, was given a reprimand for not arresting enough people. I think that that was target-driven rather than being particularly sensible.

As I have said, the police in general do a fantastic job, and they feel let down by the few officers who behave badly. A number of officers have spoken to me directly about some of the issues that we explored in the Select Committee, such as Plebgate, and have told me that they are ashamed to wear the same uniform as some of those involved. Those officers deserve better. According to recent reports, in the last few years there have been more than 2,000 cases of officers and staff breaching data protection rules, in some instances by looking at the police national computer. Those officers constitute only a small fraction of the total force, and like most police officers, I wish that they would behave much better.

We are lucky in this country to have such good policing, and to have a core of policing by consent. I hope that that continues, because I am not at all keen on the idea of increasing militarisation in the police. For that reason I am concerned about Tasers, although they are a subject for another debate. Policing by consent—the sort of policing that we have here—is not just about throwing money at problems, and it is not just about passing more and more laws to make more and more actions criminal offences; it is about giving communities a say, and working closely with them. We need the police to work as part of the community, and for the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I am happy to be ignored in perfect silence or to be heckled, but when the noise is so close, it is a little difficult to hear oneself think. One expects an element of quiet—perhaps it comes with being a schoolteacher. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my neighbour, will concur with the requirement for people to listen in silence.

On the Labour position on policing cuts, 137 officers were cut in 2007 in my area. There was no opposition from Labour representatives at the time. In fact, they supported the reductions and the civilianisation of roles, so I am a little amused when local Labour politicians engage in campaigns against police cuts and reductions in police numbers. They did not have such an issue with them in 2007. I respect the shadow Minister greatly, but I was unclear on the Labour position on funding for our police. He did not rule out cuts—he clearly could not do so given the statements made by the shadow Chancellor—but he did not tell us what the scale of those cuts would be. It is a little unfair for him to be critical of the Government without putting a proper alternative forward.

[Jack Dromey]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but let me make myself absolutely clear: the best advice from HMIC was that 12% cuts could be made without impacting on the front line. We accepted that in government and then in opposition, and it has been our position ever since. The problem is that the Government have gone far beyond that, to 20% cuts, and as a consequence we have lost 15,000 police officers, including 10,000 from the front line.

[Andrew Percy]

We know the argument about whether the figure is really 12% or 14%. Either way, however, Labour has not said how it would pay for it. It has made a range of spending commitments, including repealing various welfare measures, but it has not said how it would pay for them. It is fine to say, “Let’s limit cuts to 12%”, but it is incumbent on the Opposition, who after all aspire to government, to explain how they would pay for it. We did not hear that today.

I am unclear also about neighbourhood policing. In my area, we have seen a move away from neighbourhood policing. We went from ward-based policing—a lot of public money was spent on ward-based police stations that never opened to the public—towards larger local policing teams. That happened before this Government came to power. I heard Labour’s commitment to neighbourhood policing, but we tried it in Humberside, and we have now moved to area-based policing, which has been very effective. It contains elements of neighbourhood policing and best practice, but not quite as originally envisaged.

I concur with colleagues who are unsure whether to believe crime figures—I was critical of them as a local councillor, under the last Government, when major falls were trumpeted—although there has undoubtedly been a fall in crime, particularly in antisocial behaviour. I was a local councillor for 10 years, and it used to be an issue of great concern—there were issues with street corners and public places—but in my experience it has now abated. Nevertheless, I do not believe the crime figures as they are presented, not least because a lot of crime still goes unreported. In addition, there are many crimes that years ago would have been reported, but are not now. I had my car broken into five times in 18 months, but I did not report each crime, as would have happened perhaps 10 or 15 years ago. So although we should welcome the general fall in crime, I do not believe it has fallen as far as is claimed.

Local authorities can have an impact on local policing. We have seen an excellent example of that in north Lincolnshire under the leadership of Liz Redfern, who took over the council from Labour in 2011. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Absolutely. She pledged to use local council funding to provide additional police community support officers in rural areas so that Humberside police could get on with policing in the urban areas, where the crime statistics showed such policing was necessary. We provided those additional PCSOs through local grants to the police, and only a few weeks ago, I welcomed the new PCSOs, Michelle Thorley and Dan Dreggs, who work out of Epworth and cover the whole of the isle of Axholme. They are doing a great job, funded by the local council.

Despite the massive cuts to local authorities we have heard about, the local council has also provided CCTV funding, and a new CCTV system is now coming into place in Epworth. Moreover, they, along with East Riding of Yorkshire council, have a sharing arrangement with Humberside police for fuel and vehicles, which is to be welcomed, while our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Grove, and his deputy, Paul Robinson, are working on a strategy for sharing buildings, which sometimes involves moving police stations into shared buildings. We must be careful to ensure a continuous presence—we do not want the services diminished—but in fact there is an increasing police presence, and in a couple of weeks a new station will open in my constituency.

The pressure on budgets has led to those developments, which we need to see more of, so I ask the Minister to ensure that funding for local authorities takes account of such innovative practices and working. In my area, Humberside police have received £1 million from the innovation fund to give police officers and PCSOs tablet devices so that they can get out on the front line and be more visible and do their work there, which is to be welcomed. We need funding to support those kinds of measures.

I am working through the 20-day police parliamentary scheme, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my near neighbour, completed a few years ago. I have found that incredibly useful. The weekend before last, I did two night shifts with an instant response team based in Clough road police station in Hull, which covers the eastern part of the city. It was an interesting experience. I have done a number of nights in Grimsby, which was also very interesting, as well as joining public order and traffic patrols in my area. I have been struck by how dedicated staff are, but I have also been struck by how under attack some of them feel. They feel the pressure of reduced resources, as well as changes to terms and conditions and to pensions. I have been very defensive on those, particularly on pensions, on which I have had some robust discussions with police officers.

I am more sympathetic on the issue of how thin the thin blue line can be stretched. I have been uncomfortable with the scale of reductions in spending, although I understand the reasons for them, given the legacy we came to office to deal with. But we have to be careful. We have protection for NHS and school funding. I hope that, in further reductions, we will look closely at policing. In the latest round there has been protection, but we need to move on that. I get a sense from local officers that they are at a point where they can hold the line at the moment, but a small upturn in crime figures might put them under pressure.

I have also been struck by how much of the police work is not actually police work, as has been mentioned. They seem to be massively involved in social work, and in dealing with family disorder and breakdown, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and serious mental health issues. A lot of police officers said to me that they would love to be able to spend their time fighting crime, but they are spending far too much time picking up failings in other services. That must be factored in when we look at the budgets.

Our police service does a fantastic job but I think reform was needed. In my 10 years as a local councillor in Hull, I remember that lots of money was showered on policing locally. Our police precept went up by 500 per cent in the 13 years of the last Government, and a lot of buildings were built that were not open to the public. A lot of money was thrown at initiatives that were not necessarily well thought through or assessed for their effectiveness. It was a question of “There is a problem. Let us throw some money at it and hope it works.” In lots of cases, it did not work. There was a huge waste of money and we are still dealing with the legacy of some of those issues, including the buildings that were built as part of Humberside police authority’s massive expansion programme of police stations that were never open to the public.

Money is not the answer to everything. We know that and I think the Government are going in the right direction in terms of trying to promote innovation. However, we have to be conscious of the fact that we are potentially getting to a point in policing where the line has been stretched very thin and we need to be careful in moving forward. I fear that if there is an upturn in crime any time soon, we may well not be able to respond as we would want to.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

No; my difference with the Lords amendment is that it would leave applicants less clear about what to do. This would result in a large number of cases backing up in the courts waiting for judges to interpret what Parliament meant by the legislation, just as there are at the moment. The purpose of my proposal today is twofold: first, to meet the reasonable objections that have been raised about the original Government proposal; secondly, to provide greater clarity so that the House can speak with as clear a voice as possible in these difficult areas and not leave the field open to judicial interpretation, which can take a long time and which provides uncertainty for applicants.

I am aware that, in both Houses, there has been a misconception that applicants would somehow be required to prove that they did not commit the offence before compensation could be considered. I can categorically say that that is not the case. Applicants do not have to prove anything under the existing criteria, and nor would they have to do so in future under this proposal. Applicants need only rely on information that is already available to them as a result of their appeal process.

The test provided for in the Bill on its introduction was one that Labour was perfectly content to operate while it was in office. I hope that the new definition, which attempts to address the concerns that have been raised, will therefore have the support of the Opposition. I hope that they will now reconsider their position so that the Bill, and the many important measures it contains, can swiftly secure Royal Assent.

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

Justice demands that those who are guilty of serious offences should be held to account and brought before the courts, especially in the case of heinous offences such as the murder of a child or a terrorist outrage of the kind that the city I am proud to represent suffered in 1974, with the appalling Birmingham pub bombings by the Provisional IRA, in which 21 innocent civilians were murdered. The victims of such crimes deserve no less than having the perpetrators brought to justice. Justice also demands that the innocent should not be found guilty, however. When serious miscarriages of justice occur, it is right that the innocent have access to justice and are able to be compensated for them.

I am proud of the system of jury trial in this country. I fought for many years to defend it, as a member of the executive council of the then National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty. Trial by jury is one of our great British institutions. In the words of the jurist Lord Devlin, each jury is a “mini Parliament”, and trial by jury is

“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

Juries can get it wrong in certain circumstances, however: when evidence is withheld from or not disclosed to the defence, as in the case of Sally Clark; when new forensic evidence shows that the person charged and convicted was in fact innocent, as in the case of Mary Druhan; or when evidence is extorted as a consequence of outrageous and unacceptable pressure in a police station, or when it is manufactured, as in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. When we debate the importance of compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice, it is worth reflecting on each of those sets of circumstances.

Sally Clark was a practising solicitor. She was traumatised by the sudden death of her child. She was wrongly accused of murdering her child, and went to prison. When she came out, she was a crushed woman, and she died not long afterwards. Mary Druhan was convicted of arson. In a powerful speech in the other place, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws described how Mary Druhan had served 11 years in prison, and how she had become so institutionalised that when she came out, she was unable to negotiate public transport. She was also traumatised by the tragic suicide of her daughter while she was in prison.

At a time in our history when the country was reeling from the horror of terrorist violence, what happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was absolutely wrong. The Birmingham Six were beaten, brutalised and wrongly convicted. They served 16 years in prison. In the case of the Guildford Four, I will never forget when they walked to freedom and Gerry Conlon stood on the steps of the Old Bailey and said that his dad had died in prison. Such serious miscarriages of justice are mercifully rare—there are typically only a couple a year—but it is absolutely right that compensation should be available for the innocent victims who have suffered as a result of them.

At the very heart of our legal system lies the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. It is for that reason that Labour tabled an amendment on Report to ensure that that age-old principle was upheld. I said then, as I do now, that I agreed that the Government were right in principle to include in the Bill a statutory definition of the cases in which compensation should be paid for a miscarriage of justice, in order to secure greater certainty in this area of the law. However, the Government’s proposed changes today seek to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to circumstances in which a

“new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”

of which he or she was convicted. That seems to fly in the face of the age-old principle. Worse still, the Government’s proposal will lead to the Secretary of State passing judgment on whether or not a person is innocent. Requiring the Secretary of State to perform that role when no court has done so would be to impose a complex and contentious role on Ministers, in cases that are among the most sensitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the issue of innocence and the test that is to be applied. Like me, he is aware that Barry George was convicted of the murder of Jill Dando, was then acquitted and then lost his appeal for compensation. What does the hon. Gentleman say about that case?

[Jack Dromey]

First, the number of people who receive compensation every year is a handful—it is less than the number of fingers on a hand. There is no automatic entitlement to compensation, and each case is considered on its merits. Secondly, I have rightly focused on cases where people are absolutely entitled to receive compensation for the trauma they suffered as a result of being wrongly convicted and spending many years in prison, and I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree on that.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the cases he has cited and the appalling years that these people spent, without obtaining justice in the form of compensation. We need to recognise where we agree: there is a consensus in the House on achieving justice for these people. He mentioned the innocence test. Amendment (a) would do away with the language of “innocent” and replace it with a test of “did not commit”. What is the substantive difference between that and the Pannick amendment, which I understand he supports and which also requires that the burden is to prove

“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”?

There is still a burden to provide conclusive proof, so what is the substantive difference between it and the “did not commit” test that the Government are now proposing?

[Jack Dromey]

In English law, someone is innocent until they are proved guilty. Let me contrast the three different formulations. The Lords amendment would mean that the new or newly discovered fact showed

“conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”.

The Government’s original clause would have required that the fact showed

“beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”.

Amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment repeats those tell-tale words of “beyond reasonable doubt” and proposes a test that the person “did not commit” the offence. We strongly believe that the formulation from the other place provides a much more appropriate test, and that the amendment in lieu is about making it more difficult for victims of miscarriages of justice like those to whom I have referred to receive compensation. Indeed, two of the Birmingham Six have expressed the view, following legal advice, that they might not have been entitled to compensation under the Government’s proposed changes.

[Mr Burrowes]

We are talking about where the burden lies so we are dealing with the difference between a test of “beyond reasonable doubt” and one of proving “conclusively”. This is not about distinguishing “innocence”; the debate was had in the Lords and there has been a recognition that we need to have reference to a “did not commit” test. I am trying to work out where we differ on this. Are we differing about whether something should be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” or just be proved “conclusively”? If so, what is the substantive difference between proving “conclusively” and proving “beyond reasonable doubt”?

[Jack Dromey]

As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will know the difference between providing conclusive proof and proving something beyond reasonable doubt. I stress again that the essence of our argument, and that supported by all parties and Cross Benchers in the other place, is that an individual is innocent until proved guilty. We see no good reason why a victim of a miscarriage of justice should suffer a “beyond reasonable doubt” test.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is not the Barry George example one we should think about carefully? He was convicted and spent a lot of time in prison but was later released as “not guilty” of the offence. He was then denied any compensation. Is the amendment in lieu an attempt by the Government to deny people compensation, and thus save money? Or is it a return to the slack days when a large number of people were wrongly convicted? The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which gave evidence last week to the Select Committee on Justice, confirmed that more than 500 people had been released from prison as a result of its intervention—I believe that is the correct figure.

[Jack Dromey]

There is a widespread view, reflected in the debate in the other place—someone talked about “incredulity”—as to why the Government are introducing such a test. A statutory definition providing greater clarity, particularly in the light of some of the cases that have gone before the courts, is one thing, but making it more difficult for people to receive compensation for serious miscarriages of justice is something altogether different. As the Barry George case shows, very few people are receiving compensation. The fear expressed in the other place is that the Government’s proposals will make it yet more difficult to obtain compensation for a miscarriage of justice.

[Mr Burrowes]

We all want clarity, so let me try to understand the difference between “conclusively” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. Are we talking about a balance of probabilities—whether something is more likely than not? Or are we talking about proving something beyond reasonable doubt, so that people are satisfied and sure? Is “conclusively” a balance of probabilities test, a beyond reasonable doubt test or something else? If it is something else, that wording does not provide the clarity we all seek.

[Jack Dromey]

As an eminent lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will know that “beyond reasonable doubt” has a very clear standing and purpose in our criminal justice system.

[Mr Burrowes]

Which is it?

[Jack Dromey]

We believe it is inappropriate for the test to be pitched so high; a “beyond reasonable doubt” test will make it more difficult for victims of miscarriages of justice to obtain compensation.

[Mr Burrowes]

rose—

[Jack Dromey]

I have given way three times and have been more than happy to do so, but let me continue now.

For all the reasons I have described, Labour tabled an amendment on Report in this Chamber and then wholeheartedly backed the amendment in the name of Lord Pannick in the other place, which would ensure that compensation should be paid only if the new or newly discovered fact showed conclusively that the evidence against the defendant at trial was so undermined that

“ no conviction could possibly be based on it.”

That clearly provides a statutory definition and greater certainty in this area of the law, while adhering to the age-old principle for which I have argued so strongly. When the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction, it is simply wrong then to require the defendant also to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is, to all intents and purposes, innocent. Such a provision is incompatible with the presumption of innocence.

The framework for which I am arguing already applies in the Supreme Court, where it was brought in by the then President, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who strongly supported the Pannick amendment in the other place, and indeed in the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said:

“in our view requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR.”

It is worth stressing again that the amendment from the other place is not about giving people more compensation automatically or making it easier for people to get off on technicalities and then to claim compensation in all circumstances; it is about serious and rare cases in which it is entirely appropriate that the victims should receive compensation. As our amendment makes clear, asking people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is an affront to our system of law, and denying compensation to those who have been wrongly convicted is an affront to a decent society. Many Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), have campaigned for many years on miscarriages of justice.

The simple fact is that our legal system is not perfect, and cases do go wrong. It is a tribute to our legal system that miscarriages of justice are rare, but when they do happen, it is simply wrong to expect those who have suffered to prove to all intents and purposes that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt—it is adding to the injustice that they have already suffered.

As I argued at the start of my contribution, miscarriages of justice lead to ruined lives. Families are destroyed. People leave while their partners sit wrongly behind bars. Jobs and homes are lost and people’s reputations are left in tatters. The mental despair and anguish are never fully resolved, which is why victims of miscarriages of justice need real help on their release. People’s lives can never go back to how they were. That is where we, as a decent society, have to make amends, and that is what our amendment does.

In conclusion, I urge all Members of this House to support a rigorous and fair justice system that sticks up for its founding principle of people being innocent until proved guilty; that rejects the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt” to obtain compensation; that ensures that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all they have suffered; and that reflects rulings already set out in the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In short, we want a justice system that is serious about putting right serious injustice.

[John McDonnell]

To be frank, I am absolutely confused about where we have got to. I am confused over the difference of interpretation between innocence and “did not commit”. If someone wants to intervene on me at this stage I would be really grateful, because I cannot see the difference.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has explained the implications of the proposal with regard to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. Let me put the situation in context following my involvement in the case of the Guildford Four. A number of people are locked up for many years. When they come out, they have nothing—no accommodation and no employment. The financial compensation they receive is relatively minimal compared with the suffering that they have gone through, and it is desperately needed to ensure that they have a chance of some form of normal life in the future.

In the case of the Guildford Four—it was the same in the case of the Birmingham Six—we found that not just the prisoners but whole families were devastated. There have been suicides in the family of Paul Hill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, the lives of Errol and Theresa Smalley have been permanently damaged. The whole family network has been damaged as a result of that case. Gerry Conlon admitted it when he came out of prison. He was addicted to drugs, because that was the only way he could cope. The state pays compensation to try to do whatever it can to remedy the injustice that took place.

The cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six went to court and were quashed because the forensic evidence demonstrated that confessions were made under duress and that documents were tampered with. When they left court, it was on the basis that the system had failed in due process to prove that they had committed the crimes for which they were brought to court. We then went through a negotiation process, which was quite bizarre; I did not realise that, under the existing compensation arrangements, their compensation would be reduced to pay for accommodation charges while they were in prison. It was a real struggle to get that compensation. The Minister says that this is not the case, but under the proposed system, if a case is quashed on the basis of that type of evidence, the defendants will have to go to another level of proof to get any compensation. They will have to demonstrate not that the process was faulty in the first place and that they should never have been caught, but that they did not commit the crime, which is having to prove innocence. That is almost impossible, for any of us. Trying to prove that negative is contrary to everything in English law, and practically impossible to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the important points that have been made during this debate.

Taking this back to first principles, the domestic courts have always made it clear that compensation should be paid when the new facts that form the basis on which a person’s conviction was quashed clearly show that the applicant did not commit the offence. However, the courts have never been able to define without ambiguity a stable and robust test. Given the courts’ difficulty in this area, we decided to create a clear and definitive statutory test, the requirement for which is supported by Parliament and others, including the Joint Committee on Human Right, although I appreciate not by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and conceivably the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), although he did not address the point.

With regard to the test, we have sought to provide an amendment that recognises that compensation should be paid only to those who genuinely warrant it. What we require to achieve that is for the new fact to demonstrate that the applicant did not commit the crime—I addressed the various situations in which that could be shown—and that this should be evident from the reasons outlined in the Court of Appeal’s judgment that led to the quashing of an applicant’s conviction. The applicant does not have to prove their innocence—in other words, the reversal of the burden of proof, which Members have mentioned. That is simply not the case. The reasons why the applicant could not have committed the crime will be evident from what is outlined in a successful appeal.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about the Sally Clark case. Obviously it is difficult to say how we would consider any applications where compensation would be payable under the new test in the abstract. We have heard much mention of their lordships’ discussion of this. On Report in the Lords, there was disagreement between two eminent lawyers as to the facts of the case that would be fundamental in consideration of an application for compensation. Great lawyers can disagree about that, but what we do know, and what therefore cannot be in dispute, is that the Secretary of State did grant compensation in that case.

[Jack Dromey]

Just for the record, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote, who are members of the Supreme Court, all supported amendment 112. Why is the Minister pitching this at the level of beyond reasonable doubt?

[Damian Green]

I should point out that Lord Brown disagreed and that the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Adams case was five to four. It genuinely is the case that our most distinguished lawyers were very close to disagreeing.

On the question of beyond reasonable doubt, the ambiguity we seek to resolve with our amendment (a) is illustrated not just by the 13 cases currently awaiting consideration by the administrative court, but by the disagreement between the lawyers in the House of Lords about whether Sally Clark would not have qualified for compensation under that test. The fact that the hon. Gentleman could not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) whether the test he supports—the conclusive test—is one of beyond reasonable doubt or of the balance of probabilities reflects that test’s inherent ambiguity.

There is nothing new in the “beyond reasonable doubt” test. The existing provision in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already requires a miscarriage of justice to be shown to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt. The Government, therefore, are not introducing a new test. The aspect on which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle have laid such great weight is already in the 1988 Act, which we are seeking to improve.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a reasonable point. He does not think that Parliament should get involved at all and that we should just leave it to the lawyers. I disagree with that argument and so do most people who have addressed the issue. I think we should try to set out a clear, unambiguous basis for the payment of compensation.

I return to the basic point that where the new fact which underpins the quashing of the conviction clearly shows that the offence did not happen, that the applicant could not have carried out the offence or that someone else carried out the offence, that would qualify as a miscarriage of justice. That seems to me to be clearer and less ambiguous than what we have at the moment. It will not deny anyone who genuinely deserves compensation from getting it.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 112.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I was somewhat surprised by the original amendment passed in the other place, which was backed by many, including Labour peers, because it wrote into law discrimination that I would not be happy with. We have rules about behaviour that is unfair—behaviour that is too harsh—but I was really surprised to see an amendment that said there should be one set of rules for people in social housing and a completely different set of rules for people in private housing. If someone’s behaviour is causing problems that are sufficiently serious to be dealt with under the Bill, the form of tenure should not matter. I was very disappointed by that amendment and very pleased that the Government corrected it. What we now have corrects that problem and I am happy to support it, because I would not have been able to support the previous version from the Lords.

[Jack Dromey]

Just for the record, the proposal for a tenure-neutral approach in fact came from Labour Lords.

[Dr Huppert]

I do not have the list of exactly who proposed what. The Government amendment we have is neutral; the one that Labour peers supported in the other place was not tenure-neutral. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a flaw in it, although the other principle was there.

I welcome the change, although I remain surprised by the position of the Opposition, who felt that the version that left this place was both too draconian and too liberal. I am glad that their position has moved in a more liberal direction. The new approach is far better than the failed system of ASBOs, which many young people collected as a badge of honour. A huge number of people broke them; they simply did not work. I think that this non-criminalising approach will work much better.

Let me turn now to some of the other issues. Lords amendment 10 is important and concerns the principle that we should not be using these rules to throw children out of their own homes. The Lords pushed for that, and it is a shame that we did not manage to get it fixed in this place. The importance of care for the under-18s should have been emphasised more strongly during the Bill’s earlier stages, and I am glad that it has been emphasised more strongly now. This is another of the issues that were dealt with by the Home Affairs Committee. I am also pleased that Lords amendment 11 proposes the removal of clause 13, because it discriminated on the basis of tenure.

Lords amendments 23 and 24 deal with the rights of free expression and free assembly. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that we should ensure that dispersal powers were not used in a way that could damage those rights. Before my hon. Friend became a Minister in this Department, the Government moved some of the way towards this, and I am glad that he has now been able to persuade them to move the whole way, so that we can protect all forms of free expression and free assembly.

Lords amendments 59 to 64 deal with cases of riot. Riot is of course very serious, and we have already seen what it can lead to in this country. As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister said that he wanted stronger powers to deal with the families of people who were rioting. Many of us felt that, although we could understand the tensions that existed at the time, his suggestion went too far. It did not seem appropriate to throw everyone out of a house because a 16-year-old child had committed a minor offence where a riot was happening. I do not in any sense condone either the riot or the behaviour, but throwing an entire family out of their home seems to be a disproportionate response. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in this regard, which has led to the proposal that an automatic eviction should take place only if the offence is committed by an adult, and only if it is a serious, indictable offence. A trivial offence that happened to be committed near a riot would not lead to such an eviction; nor would an offence committed by a child.

Finally, let me raise two issues that we had very little time to discuss during our initial debates in this House, and that were not particular topics of interest at that stage. The first involves surveillance and the Terrorism Act 2000. Lords amendment 102 and related amendments deal with the powers of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about the surveillance commissioners and their decisions. The IPT does not necessarily work as well as it needs to, and it is not as transparent and open as it needs to be, but I am glad that we are taking a step towards more transparency. Surveillance oversight is an extremely important subject, and the Bill does not finish what we need to do about it. There is much more to be done, but although the amendments represent just a tiny piece of the jigsaw, I welcome them.

Lords amendment 100 and related amendments deal with schedule 8, which amends schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act. Schedule 7 became very topical at the time of the detention of David Miranda. I am pleased that, after a great deal of argument in this House, we have managed to get some changes made in the House of Lords. People must be questioned within an hour of detention, reviews must take place within two hours of that, and people’s right to consult a solicitor is made clear. That fundamental right was omitted by the Terrorism Act when it was passed by the last Government. There is much more to be done about that as well, but I am very pleased with all the amendments. I commend the Minister and his team for their work, and look forward to our passing the amendments promptly.

Police and Crime Commissioners and ACPO

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am grateful to have secured this debate, which is timely, as the police and crime commissioners’ decision on the funding of the Association of Chief Police Officers is pending.

ACPO still receives £4 million of public funding. Some £1.2 million of that is provided directly by PCCs to ACPO centrally, with the remainder almost all going to national policing units still overseen by ACPO—something that I and other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs have repeatedly said is wrong. The Home Office has already ended funding to ACPO, so I hope the Minister will find General Sir Nick Parker’s independent review of ACPO helpful.

The PCCs to whom I have spoken do not in any way interpret recommendation 4, on having a change management programme, as a criticism of the Home Office; rather, they see it as an offer to work with the Home Office to ensure that the transition from ACPO happens, and to provide a final year of funding to do so. The Parker report’s other three recommendations also strongly support the changes to the policing landscape driven by the Home Office, and they will be welcomed by members of the Select Committee, and by many chief constables who are perhaps not part of the ACPO in-group, if I may describe it in that way.

The Parker report’s first three recommendations are central to today’s debate, and I will address them in reverse order. Recommendation 3 states:

“PCCs should seek greater visibility of National Business Area governance and output. Even though the overall responsibility for management is transferring from ACPO to the College of Policing the level of resources that Business Areas consume at local level mean that PCCs remain a major stakeholder.”

The Select Committee would probably also add that Alex Marshall and the College of Policing are in charge. The College of Policing is a new body that will take time to get into its stride, which I believe it is now doing. It is important that chief constables look to Alex Marshall, who is operationally in charge of the college, to provide that leadership, because it now happens through the College of Policing, rather than through ACPO.

Recommendation 3 runs counter to the rearguard action being fought by a number of chief constables; that point is addressed on page 10 of the report, where General Parker refers to the “concerns” from some that

“the wide representation of stakeholders within the College, and the processes necessary to ensure appropriate consideration, may delay the implementation of tactical procedures. Chief Constables should retain an important stake in the speed of decision-making and the priorities set to address issues. This will allow Business Area Heads to ensure timely, credible implementation and, if the situation demands it, provide an effective counter to obfuscation by other stakeholders within the College who may not have responsibility for operational effect.”

That betrays some chief constables’ lack of understanding of how the new policing landscape should operate, and particularly of the role of the College of Policing in running those business areas, and the key role of the police and crime commissioners on the college’s board. As the general says,

“it would be wrong to assume that there is a clear dividing line between policy and practice”.

That is why it is necessary for PCCs to have oversight. The business areas should not just be pushed off on to a professional committee within the College of Policing; the PCCs should be central either in directly managing the business areas or delegating them to ensure appropriate supervision. That is essential, as General Parker emphasises in his report.

The second recommendation is on national units, of which there is a great range. Some are small in what they do, although they are often important, and some are smaller or larger in terms of funding. The general says that we need

“alternative models to governance, funding and support currently provided by ACPO, such as the lead force…to streamline governance and financial accountability by reinvigorating the bilateral contact between forces and each national unit. This will ensure that individual force requirements are met in the most cost effective manner.”

The report continues:

“ACPO does provide important administrative services, particularly in support of national units. It governs some commercial interests and acts as the home for CPOSA. There are alternative solutions, including more widespread use of the lead force model in the case of national units.”

There is a clear model for the direction that that should go in, so the question is how we arrange the transfer over the next year, if the PCCs are kind enough to provide funding and support for the Home Office to oversee it.

Finally—this is key—nobody has any objection to chief constables getting together to discuss matters of mutual interest. That is something that they have done, as the so-called chief constables’ council, within ACPO, using ACPO as the agency to the extent that that was required, but the consensus, certainly in the report, is that the status quo is no longer feasible. General Parker says that we need change that

“shifts responsibilities…to the College of Policing and other appropriate bodies, one of which must represent senior…operational leadership at the national level”.

ACPO will therefore have no further role in that. I emphasise that responsibility is shifting to other appropriate bodies, one of which will provide a central focus at the national level and can act as a forum for the senior leadership of the police service.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He rightly quotes at length the Parker review, which praises the historic work of ACPO, recommends a collective national policing function to conduct operational and managerial co-ordination, and argues for reform. It has been embraced by ACPO and supported by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which are now collaborating in a transitional board. Does he accept the importance of a focus akin to that which ACPO has provided historically? Whatever the future reforms, there should be that focus on the effective co-ordination of operational and managerial delivery. Is that not key to the safety and security of the communities that we represent?

[Mark Reckless]

What is key for our communities is democratic oversight. As I said in my maiden speech, if Labour is now not the party of democratic oversight, which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has an honourable record in pushing, but of ACPO, then it can stand on that basis, but that is a sad change. I am not sure whether, in the shadow Minister’s remarks, there was a degree of confusion between ACPO and the National Police Coordination Centre, in terms of that national co-ordinating role during times of crisis—the most obvious recent example is the riots. Everyone agrees that that role is required, but we need appropriate oversight of that, and there is appropriate oversight in that centre. The president of ACPO does not have direction and control; he is one of a number of people serving on the new body, which includes representation from the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. That is the right model.

It is perfectly fine to discuss and develop the idea of whether chief constables need a collective view, and whether or not the body should be called the chief constables’ council. The traditional tripartite model involves the chief constable and the police authority locally, and the Home Office setting the national framework. Unfortunately, over several decades, ACPO began undemocratically to set that national framework centrally, when it is much more appropriate for such things to be delivered locally and with democratic oversight. If there is to be a chief constables’ council, which is perfectly sensible, it should be run by a part-time chair elected by the members—even ACPO was run in that way before 2003. There is no need for some great legal entity and superstructure that has human resources, finance and legal functions; it can operate like the other business areas. The elected chair could use his staff officer and a number of officers within the local force as appropriate, with the costs falling as they lie with the business area. That is the appropriate model, which would allow chief constables to work together, with the chair speaking on their behalf when appropriate. That is all that is required, and we must be sure that the transition does not allow a revamped ACPO to return from the dead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

A very serious allegation has just been made about the most senior police officers in our country. It has been alleged that they are corrupt. Will the hon. Gentleman either justify that statement or withdraw it?

[Julian Smith]

I will not withdraw it. An organisation that offers jobs to ex-officers without following the procurement processes that it created displays a form of corruption. It is a club working in its own interests. The report does not identify that, just as it does not identify the organisation’s moral vacuum. There have been many challenges to our police service, but has this organisation reviewed the issue of better leadership, or what should be done? Has it looked at how many women are in the senior leadership of our police forces? Has it looked at ethnic minorities? Has it challenged itself? Has it looked at new entrants into the forces? Has it looked at why white males largely dominate the senior positions within our police? It has not. For those reasons, we should draw a line under ACPO. The PCCs should not give this organisation a penny piece beyond some transitional funding. The Home Office should be much more focused on ensuring that any money that it pays for ongoing projects does not seep over into the overall running of this organisation. ACPO is finished and should be wound up; the sort of organisation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood sounds like just the ticket for a new, more transparent period of policing.

Mental Health (Police Procedures)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour, Mr Brady, to serve under your chairmanship. We have all seen in our constituencies the pain suffered by those with mental health problems, the trauma that that can cause to their families and local communities, and the immense problems that may arise for the police. I welcome the debate and the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), and the powerful testimony about what happens at the sharp end from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).

Police officers have many different roles. They maintain order, protect life, limb and property, prevent and deter offences and, when an offence has been committed, take appropriate measures to bring the offender to justice. However, as the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police, Sir Peter Fahy, warned earlier this year, policing and mental health problems have increasingly become the main issue for his officers responding to emergency calls, and that

“the force was struggling to cope.”

He is not alone.

Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, such is the increasing number of calls that recent reports about the Metropolitan police’s new protocol suggest that officers have been ordered not to respond to calls from mental health units and emergency departments for help to control and restrain patients unless there is

“a significant threat to life and limb”.

Such an uneasy interface between the health service and the police does not benefit anyone, least of all those suffering from mental health issues. That is why HMIC, charities, chief constables, police and crime commissioners, the Police Federation and others have all expressed their concern for both the police and those suffering from mental health issues under the current system.

The role of police officers is to ensure the safety of the public and deal with individuals who pose a threat to others or themselves. In an emergency involving an individual with mental health issues, more often than not a bobby will be first on the scene. Too often, police officers and staff must deal with people with complex mental health needs alone, instead of with the support of experienced and trained medical professionals. They are required by the law, when appropriate, to take the individual to a place of safety. More often than not, the only option is to take them into custody. It is not right that people with mental health issues who have not committed a crime are treated as criminals. Those detained under section 136 may not have committed a crime, but are suspected of suffering a mental health disorder.

Worryingly, a joint review by HMIC, the Care Quality Commission and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales found that police custody was still being used as a primary or secondary place of safety as a result of, among other factors,

“insufficient staff at a health-based place of safety”

and

“the absence of available beds at the health-based place of safety”.

That is increasingly putting a great strain on our police service. Statistics show that such incidents may tie up officers for up to eight hours. That in turn adds further strain on those suffering from mental health issues, because they are treated like any other person taken into custody during the booking-in procedure and risk assessment, and ultimately when locked in a cell.

At the heart of the difficulty—several speakers referred to this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend—is the fact that 15,000 police officers will be lost by the next election, and police resources are already stretched incredibly thinly, without the unnecessary pressure of having to act as stand-in social workers and mental health nurses because those vital services have also been cut back. Police officers are clear that they are not the right people to deal with those who need complex medical intervention for serious mental illness and that the experience of being detained may add undue stress and upset for these people, making the problem worse.

In government, Labour recognised the seriousness of the problem and commissioned the Bradley report in 2009. However, after three years in government, despite taking some welcome steps, the Government have been slow to act on the report’s fundamental recommendations, leaving us with the unacceptable problem that we now face. Quite simply, we must do better—better for the police and better for those suffering with mental health issues.

As Lord Bradley’s report acknowledged, good training and support to inform police practice are vital. To that end, I welcome the police street triage team pilots, such as those operating in Newham and Birmingham, and I encourage further working between mental health professionals and the police. However, as I have said, a police officer responding to a mental health emergency will often find themselves left with no assistance. That is unacceptable for the officer, the person concerned and the general public.

Crucially, therefore, we must have a proper partnership between the police and health providers—as the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis rightly argued and as Lord Bradley’s report also recommended—through joint training packages for mental health awareness and learning disability issues, with community support officers and police officers linking with local mental health services. Crucially, we also need to work towards moving away from the use of custody cells for those detained under section 136 to dedicated places of safety, ensuring that people suffering mental health illness are dealt with sensitively and appropriately, and are given the correct medical treatment.

Birmingham—the city I am proud to represent—is a leading example of the places of safety strategy. West Midlands police uses a mental health assessment centre at University Hospitals Birmingham, with an on-site community psychiatric nurse to carry out assessments and refer to appropriate support. Innovative local strategies such as that are welcome, leading the way with new approaches to police procedure and mental health issues. However, three years after the Bradley report, recent reports and calls from those in the police about the problem getting worse, not better, are cause for concern that not enough has been done to tackle the issue.

In conclusion, the Government need to recognise their responsibility. They urgently need to look holistically at the problem, ensuring that the right resources are available to free up the police and that people with mental health difficulties get the support they need. It is also vital that a clear, strategic framework across all Departments is put in place to help to drive and improve partnership working. I believe that policing is about more than just cutting crime, and we believe that officers should not be expected to plug the gaps in other Departments’ shortfalls—neither should those suffering from mental health issues be let down.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I note the spirit in which the Minister of State made his remarks, but the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said nothing disorderly. He might not have said as much as he has to say or as the Minister would like to hear, and we wait with bated breath to see whether the hon. Gentleman will spring from his seat to seek to catch my eye, but his behaviour has been orderly and respectful, as always.

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

I rise to speak on two matters; first, briefly, on enhanced fees. We are not opposed to the principle of what is being proposed, but it is clear from what the Minister has said that this is about more than full cost recovery, the kind for which we argued yesterday in respect of firearms. This is a revenue-raising measure. We will therefore scrutinise carefully any orders brought forward under the proposed legislation to ensure that any charges are reasonable, and that the interests of the administration of justice are best served.

Amendment 95 relates to miscarriages of justice. I am proud to serve the city of Birmingham. In 1974, the city saw the most appalling terrorist outrage when, as a consequence of bombings by the Provisional IRA, 21 innocent citizens died. Six innocent people were then convicted of that terrorist outrage. I should make it clear that I have been a lifelong opponent of violence by the Provisional IRA. My mother and father were both Irish. I was also on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties for many years, and served as its chairman. In that period, we campaigned against terrorist violence and for justice at a time when it was sometimes difficult to stick one’s head up and say that what had happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was unacceptable. Sixteen years after the Birmingham Six were sent to prison, they were released and found to have been wrongly convicted.

On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) are bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. We are rightly proud of our judicial system, but we know that it is not perfect. The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four are but two examples of miscarriages of justice that highlight in extremis the consequences of getting it wrong; taking away years of a person’s life and damaging their reputation, their friends, family and colleagues. It is therefore entirely right that when such a miscarriage of justice occurs, the innocent people who have suffered are entitled to compensation.

At the heart of our legal system lies the principle of innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. However, Government changes to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to

“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”

seem to fly in the face of this age-old principle. Under the Government’s new narrowed compensation tests, none of the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four would have been entitled to payments. Billy Power, one of the six men wrongly convicted in the 1970s for the Birmingham pub bombings, has warned that the changes would mean that

“the standard presumption of innocence would be abolished”.

And he is not alone. A report from the Westminster joint human rights commission said:

“In our view, requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence, which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR. We recommend that clause 143 be deleted from the Bill because it is on its face incompatible with the Convention.”

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As the hon. Gentleman will hear if I have a chance to say a word, I am very supportive of what he is arguing for and of the amendment that his hon. Friends have tabled. With respect, though, I would like to correct something that he said. The opinion that he just quoted was that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—not the Westminster convention, or whatever he called it—which is making exactly the argument that he is putting to the House.

[Jack Dromey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is of course right.

We support a rigorous and fair justice system, but it must ensure that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all that they have suffered, which, in the more extreme cases, can involve years of their lives. If a miscarriage of justice has taken place, it is the justice system’s mistake, and it should be its job to put it right, not to make it harder for innocent people to do so. If—God forbid!—we ever saw a repeat of what happened with the Birmingham bombings and the subsequent convictions, it would be absolutely unthinkable that those people would not be entitled to compensation.

I very much hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment and our representations. We intend to support the amendment in the other place, where we believe that further detailed scrutiny should take place, because the Government have got it wrong and we must put that wrong right.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the opening comments.

I thoroughly support new clause 10, because it is right that we recognise volunteers. Too often, people have had to pay far too much to go through the processes necessary to volunteer, as I know from my own voluntary work, although that was more of a problem when people needed separate certificates for everything they did. I am glad that we have made some progress at least.

There is an issue, however, about the availability of the right level of disclosure for criminal record certificates. I thought I knew this area reasonably well, but I did not realise until recently that it was not possible to get a basic certificate—there are three levels: basic, standard and enhanced—listing unspent convictions in England and Wales; the only body that does it is Disclosure Scotland. While getting the pricing correct, therefore, we must also ensure availability. It seems perverse that only under Scots law can somebody get what most employers ought to have access to. Most employers do not realise that they should have the basic, rather than standard or enhanced certificate. I hope that Ministers will consider that point and ensure that while providing the right costings, we also get that right, and that the Government implement the relevant provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

On new clause 28, the Minister made a strong case for having some fees. I think we would all agree that if a Russian oligarch makes great use of our courts, they should make some contribution. None of us would suggest that their having to pay £1,000 or so would inhibit their ability to get justice. Perhaps the cost of using the courts should be a fraction of the fees going to the lawyers; that might be a safe way of ensuring that we make our fair share. That is not the route chosen, however, although it is quite tempting, given how large the legal fees are in many of these cases. It is not just Russian oligarchs, of course; it is anybody with a very big transaction. It seems right that they should contribute to the costs of our fantastic court system.

We need to ensure, however, that people not in a position to pay are not hit. It should still be possible for people without money to access the courts, and in that, the fees system could help, because by taking more money from those who have lots of it, we could subsidise those who do not. I note that there is broad support for the idea that any money made should be reinvested in improving our court system and ensuring that it works well. Broadly, therefore, I am pleased to see the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendments 61, 69 and 73 are consequential on those changes. Amendment 61 will ensure that a range of powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 available to the police and others to deal with indictable offences, which currently includes all theft from shops, will remain available to deal with the theft of goods of a value of £200 or less. That means that magistrates will still be able to issue search warrants, the police will be able to enter premises to search for evidence or arrest suspects, and store detectives will still be able to arrest suspects. I hope that that provides some reassurance to some retailers that I know have been anxious about this. The amendment also ensures that the equivalent PACE provisions applying to service personnel are similarly amended to preserve relevant powers of investigation. This will ensure that cases of shop theft can continue to be investigated and pursued appropriately and rigorously by the police, while providing that where individuals are to be prosecuted in court, that can be done more efficiently and effectively.

[Jack Dromey]

I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.

Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old, excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.

What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Dromey]

Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.

On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.

Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.

Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.

It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.

Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.

New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.

We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.

Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Jack Dromey]

I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.

In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his kind comments and pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), in whose giant footsteps I am privileged to walk. He has been an outstanding Minister and shadow Minister, a great champion of the police service and one of the finest Members this House has seen in many years.

I rise to urge the House to reject the programme motion. I do so not because programme motions are inappropriate in general—far from it—but because in this case the programme motion is being used to curtail debate and because the Government are running scared after having lost a number of votes in Committee, and a Whip and a Minister, during the deliberations on this Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) pointed out on Second Reading, while there are measures in this Bill that we support—crucially, the new child protection measures—it is a Christmas-tree Bill with a bit on a number of measures. There is a bit on police standards, a bit on guns and a bit on dogs, but in none of those areas does the Bill go far enough, and it is weak on tackling antisocial behaviour. It weakens antisocial behaviour powers at a time when the Office for National Statistics shows there is concern among the public that antisocial behaviour is increasing, with eight in 10 telling the ONS it has increased in their direct experience over the past year.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of support for the point of view he is expressing, not least from my constituency on the issue of protecting children from sexual exploitation? Will he therefore feel very confident in promoting the case he is now putting?

[Jack Dromey]

This issue will be addressed shortly, and there is widespread consensus across the House on the importance of strengthening powers to protect children.

It is with this in mind that we express our concern about the programme motion, which will curtail debate on important measures, such as our proposals on dangerous dogs and measures on protection for public-facing workers, undercover policing and guns and also issues put forward by Members on the Government Benches, like extradition.

There are 89 pages of amendments and new clauses, many of which have been tabled by the Government at the last minute as, sadly, has often become the case with this Government. As a direct result, there will be little time to debate many of these important issues that we and Members on the Government Benches have put forward. For absolute clarity, I should state that the Opposition were asked whether we would support an extension of time for debate today and tomorrow, only for the Government then to cut the time for debate tomorrow. What is most worrying is the sense that the Government are using the programme motion because they are running scared of losing a vote on dangerous dogs, not least because many of their Members will be partying at a social occasion elsewhere.

Earlier today I met Michael Anderson, a fine man whose 14-year-old daughter Jade was killed by four dangerous dogs. He came to this House hoping that we would properly debate taking tough action so that, as he said, no father would ever again suffer what he has suffered. This Bill offered the Government the perfect opportunity finally to bring forward the kind of tough legislation necessary to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners, but, despite support for action from MPs on both sides of the House, they failed to act.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend highlights a very sad and tragic case extremely well to make his point. The point my constituents have made to me about both dangerous dogs and gun crime is that they are incredibly difficult subjects that need to be examined in great detail in order to get changes in the law right. Anything rushed or done without proper consideration runs the risk of not making things better, and possibly making them worse.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is not just about the tough action that is necessary but about getting the right kind of action, and that can be ensured only by way of proper debate in this House.

The Government gave a commitment in Committee that they would review the maximum penalties for an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but last week they waited until a few minutes after the deadline for tabling new amendments to the Bill, then let the House know that they would bring forward proposals on Report despite previous assurances to the contrary. Having failed to act, the Government now propose to fix the timetable so that our proposals for robust action in the form of dog control notices, which have worked so effectively in Scotland, will not receive proper debate, and to ensure that they do not lose the vote—a decision condemned by Michael Anderson.

It may be that I am naturally suspicious, but in the Government’s conduct over dangerous dogs, I smell a rat. First, we had the removal of the Minister who promised that the Government would review action on dangerous dogs and bring back proposals on Report, and then the new Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), last week waited until after the deadline for tabling amendments to inform the House that the Government will be doing no such thing. Now the Government want to fix the timetable to avoid debate and losing a vote. The Minister knows a thing or two about conspiracy theories, but I am sure he did not expect to be involved in one quite so quickly. Despite his being responsible for dogs and ASBOs, the Government do not even list him as a speaker in the debate. It would appear that he has been silenced less than a week into his tenure of office. I would urge him to investigate.

I urge the House to reject the programme motion and encourage the Government to allocate more time for debate. Any Government’s first duty to their citizens is to ensure their safety and security. Our citizens would expect nothing less than these very important measures, but the motion fails to ensure that they are properly debated in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. All of us will have felt that yesterday’s event was superbly staged not only by St Paul’s cathedral, but by our military personnel. It was a fitting tribute to a great leader and a woman who is an inspiration to many of us.

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

T4. Birmingham, historically the city of Pebble Mill, has great BBC traditions. Widespread concern has been expressed that in Britain’s second city, much programme making has been transferred, with the licence fee payer in the midlands no longer receiving value for money. Does the Minister agree that with dialogue now under way with the new director-general, our great national broadcaster has an obligation to ensure that Birmingham does not suffer a disproportionate impact and remains a world-class centre of production and programme making?

[Mr Vaizey]

The BBC is obviously independent of politicians and it would be wrong of us to make decisions on its behalf. Under the previous Government the BBC began the move to Salford, which has been very important. I know that the new director-general recognises, as did his predecessors, that the BBC has a duty to the whole country. May I also take this opportunity to welcome the opening of the biggest library in Europe in Birmingham?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We recognise that prisoners have a variety of causes for their offending and my hon. Friend is right to highlight one of them. We want to ensure that prisoners have access to the necessary schemes and interventions—both in prison and through the gate to the outside—to deal with whatever their issues may be. I will certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend says about gambling and at whether more can be done.

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

T6. Just when MPs of all parties are seeing growing demand for housing, including as a consequence of the Government’s welfare and benefit changes, eight Shelter housing advice centres are scheduled to close. Those centres are lifelines to those in housing need, often at a time of crisis in their lives. Will the Secretary of State meet me and hon. Members from all political parties who are concerned about how to support those in housing need in their constituencies?

[Chris Grayling]

We will always discuss concerns that Members of this House have about their constituencies, but Labour Members must understand that we are dealing with an unprecedented financial crisis. We inherited from them a situation in which this country was borrowing £1 for every £4 that it spent. That inevitably means tough decisions that they may not always like.

Police

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

In August, Birmingham was hard hit by outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that saw communities terrorised, but led by our admirable chief constable, Chris Sims, police officers restored order. They were truly heroic. They were the thin blue line protecting communities from rioting and robbery.

What was absolutely wrong, however, was Conservative Ministers returning from holiday in their Bermuda shorts seeking to take the credit despite having had nothing to do with the work of restoring order to the streets. What was absolutely wrong was crazy talk about baton rounds, water cannon and bringing in the army, which would have led to a downward spiral into yet further violence. The police were right to reject such nonsense and instead defend the British model of community policing. They, themselves, have learned painful lessons from history, from Scarman, through Macpherson and onwards, that we can only police the community with the support of the community. It was Chris Sims who said that had it not been for that support, his officers would have struggled to restore order.

When Labour was in government, we, together with the police, made a real difference—they, on the one hand, evolving that unique model of British community policing, and us, on the other hand, investing in the police service, resulting in nearly 20,000 additional police officers and 16,000 extra police community support officers. The consequence was a 43% reduction in crime. We were the first Government in history to leave office with crime falling rather than rising.

What is also absolutely wrong—I ask Government Members to search their conscience on this—is to break a promise. The Liberal Democrat Leader said, “Vote for me and you will have 3,000 extra police officers on the beat.” Not one Conservative Member went to his or her constituents and said, “Vote for me and I’ll cut the number of police officers on the beat.”

The consequences in the west midlands are serious. Twelve hundred police officers are going. We have heard some creative accounting and fantasy figures, but may we return to the real world of what is happening at the sharp end? Some 634 officers have gone already, most of them forced out under regulation A19, and among them are some of the most outstanding police officers in Birmingham and Britain. There is Tim Kennedy, a detective with one of the best records of tackling acquisitive crime and a high detection rate; Tony Fisher, who put away, first, a robber who had stolen from pensioners at cash points for 13 years and then a machete-wielding robber of local shops for 17 years; Dave Hewitt, an outstanding neighbourhood sergeant; and Mark Stokes, the acknowledged national expert in designing out crime on our streets and estates. Sixteen officers are going from the counter-terrorism squad, including the head of counter-terrorism and the head of crime. All are being forced out against their will. They are some of the best officers I have had the privilege of working with—I am proud to call them friends—but they are being forced out at the age of 48 or 49.

To add insult to injury, some of the officers forced out under A19 were approached after the riots by G4S, which was brought in to help deal with the post-riots investigations, and asked whether they would like to come back and work as a police officer once again, but this time for G4S, actually costing the taxpayer more. We also had some absurdities, such as when the community in Quinton was told, “We’ll no longer be able to keep open the front office”—where the public come in and interface with the police—“but perhaps we could, if you were prepared to man the police station yourselves.” Where will it end? Next the Government will be asking local communities to arrest criminals themselves.

We have heard repeatedly from the Government—I quote the Home Secretary—that “We can make all these savings while protecting the front line.” However, let me set out what we have discovered is actually happening on the ground, right now, in the west midlands. Thirty-two front-line police officers—some of the best still serving—have been taken off the front line and put into the back room, because the police are having to cope with cuts on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented speed. As a consequence, there are two detectives in Birmingham South who are off the front line and into the back office; three in Sutton Coldfield—off the front line, into the back office; four in Birmingham South, Bournville neighbourhood—off the front line, into the back office; four in Coventry—off the front line, into the back office; eight in Dudley—off the front line, into the back office; and 11 in Solihull—off the front line, into the back office. They include one officer, in Birmingham South, Bournville, who has been taken off the front line and put into a back office to do filing, in the post-riots filing system.

[Mr Ruffley]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that those movements to the back office have been made, but that is exactly the kind of thing that the Government think is wrong. I wonder whether he could share with us the explanation of the chief constable, who is ultimately answerable for that movement of uniformed officers into the back office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

With the greatest of respect—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—it is wrong to cut the police and then blame them for those cuts. If we impose unprecedented cuts at reckless speed, we force the very best in the leadership of our police service into a nigh-on impossible situation. They are trying to manage that deeply difficult situation well, but it is one that will inevitably lead to perverse outcomes. That is the simple reality. Instead of quoting inspectors saying, “I relish the challenge,” as was done earlier, it is about time that this House listened to what is happening at the sharp end. Indeed, one of those front-line officers contacted me just yesterday. It was heartbreaking to hear a good man who has given all his life to our police service saying, “I never thought this would happen to me. I was dedicated to the job I was doing. I feel now that I’ve got no alternative but to leave the police service.”

Let me say this in conclusion. The police do not always get it right. I think all hon. Members will have experience of having to intervene locally, in dialogue with the police, in response to pressures from the community. However, I know from my experience that what the police always do—precisely because they are champions of community policing—is respond. If, however, they get it wrong, of course we should criticise and hold them to account. However, today we should also celebrate that British model of community policing.

Back before Christmas, I addressed a rally of 500 police officers in Birmingham, together with the national chairman of the Police Federation. As they said, one after the other, not in living memory have any Government lost so quickly the support of the police service in Britain. What those officers expressed, one after the other, was utter dismay. Of course there were concerns about pay and pensions, but there was also dismay about their fellow officers—their friends—being forced out under A19, and them having to work long and hard to compensate. However, those officers also said something else, and one of them put it very powerfully when he said, “Jack, I’ve never felt so downgraded or denigrated by any Government,” because in the promotion of the notion of police commissioners, we have had a constant undermining of the police. That is why our message today is it is time for the Government to listen to what local communities are saying—to think again, to change course, to stop undermining the police. They should back the police, not sack the police.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

What emerges from that intervention is that the hon. Gentleman reads Tory leaflets and I do not, and he can keep reading as far as I am concerned, but the fact is that evidence now goes so far as to show even opposite trends. We do not have to go into that now, because I suspect that it is slightly outwith the amendment, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman uses his time so wisely.

Having started from the position of being a little sceptical about how a police commissioner covering such a vast area of urban and rural Wales could be effective, I have slowly but enthusiastically come to the conclusion that they will have an incentive to take into account public mood, public aspiration and public desire in a way that the current arrangements do not, and that it is a good thing, because it will therefore automatically lead to police priorities being more sensitive to a community’s requirements. If that happens, public satisfaction with and confidence in the police will, I trust, improve, and if that happens so will value for money in real terms and the perceived value for money of police forces, which are undoubtedly having to do some things that neither we nor they wanted them to do.

Although significant concerns have been well and reasonably articulated in the House, they in no way override the benefits to my constituents of proceeding with elected commissioners next year. We all know that they will not work perfectly everywhere all the time—no proposal that any of us has seen will do that—but one thing is certain: they will bring the community closer to their police force than is the case at the moment, and that is all the more to their credit.

I believe firmly that if we have good chief constables, which by and large we do, and if we have good police commissioners, which I have no doubt we will—let us face it, they are going to earn twice as much as a Member of Parliament, which probably means that they will be twice as good, and there is no reason to believe that they will not be extremely efficient and conscious of the impartial role that they have to play—that will lead to a vast improvement on the existing situation, recreate public confidence and trust in the police force and deliver value for money. As our friends in the Treasury remind us, that is never far away from such debates, but sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we have an economic mountain to climb.

We do not need to go into all that now, but this is one small part of the climb, so I will happily support the Government in opposing Lords amendments 1 to 4, and I hope that other Members will do likewise.

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

I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.

August reminded us why our police service matters. In the face of the worst outbreak of rioting and arson that that this country has seen in 30 years, terrorising communities all over England, including in Birmingham, our police were truly heroic. They were the thin blue line, acting decisively to restore order in the most difficult circumstances, and they were under outstanding leadership from their chief constable, Chris Sims, a man who acted decisively not because he needed to be told to do so by politicians returning from holiday, or by putative police commissioners, but because he was going to put right a terrible wrong—the outrage of what we were seeing on the streets of Birmingham.

In that process, Chief Constable Sims made it clear to Birmingham Members of Parliament that he was utterly determined to defend the British model of community policing. What was so impressive about the way he put it was this: he told us how he had become a police constable a year before the 1981 riots; how he had lived through some dramatic moments throughout the ’80s, ’90s and into this century, with tensions on the street and, sometimes, widespread public disorder; how he, like the rest of our police service, had learned painful lessons from the mistakes of the past; and that what the police service had done was to fashion a model of community policing that he and his fellow chief constables were absolutely determined to defend—what he called the bedrock of our ability to police more generally and to restore order in those most desperately difficult circumstances.

That model is based on trust, confidence and consent, and it must never, ever be put at risk by the politicisation—of the wrong kind—of our police service, be it loose talk from Ministers of water cannon and baton rounds, which would have been exactly the wrong thing to use, or this proposal to elect police commissioners. We undermine that British model of community policing, with independent chief constables able to make crucial operational decisions, at our peril and at the peril of the model itself.

The proposal for the election of police commissioners is also a grotesque waste of money: £112 million to be spent on the election of 41-odd police commissioners, some of whom might well indeed be odd. That money could put back on the streets 3,000 police officers. In the west midlands, the proposal would also see one man or woman elected to cover an entire conurbation, the nature of which is very different from one end to the other, of 5 million people.

The Government appear determined to plough on regardless with this proposal, as they do with the cuts to our police service—1,200 police officers will go in the west midlands. Ministers must recognise that if they want to spend money they should do so on police officers at the sharp end and on supporting them, not on elected police commissioners, not least because the impossible pressures being generated by Ministers are leading to perverse outcomes at the sharp end in the midlands. They include the revelations in the past fortnight that the police have had to use G4S to undertake major police functions, such as the investigations into the tragic killing of the three young men in Winson Green, the shooting at the Barton Arms during the riots and the murder in terrible circumstances of a 63-year-old in Northfield.

Because the police are so short of key staff, they are having to use G4S, employing many “A19” officers to perform the same duties now as they did in the past, when they would far rather be in a bobby’s uniform than that of G4S—and at £20 an hour, which is far more than police officers would have been paid. The part-privatisation of our police service is the perverse consequence of the pressures that the Government are putting on chief constables at the sharp end.

I would like any hon. Member in this House who went to the people of his or her constituency last May and said, “Vote for me—I will cut the police,” to put their hand up. I suspect we will be waiting for that for a very long time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said in his excellent contribution, we must work without hesitation further to improve how democratic accountability operates. At a time like this, elected police commissioners are the wrong priority at the worst possible time.