Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, those issues are being discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is important that we get a deal that is good for the entire United Kingdom.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

T4. Mobile phones in prisons allow criminals to deal drugs, intimidate their victims and continue criminality from within their prison cell. Will my hon. Friend say how the powers in the Prisons and Courts Bill will help to address the scourge of mobile phones in prisons once and for all?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

The measures in the Prisons and Courts Bill will allow the Secretary of State to authorise mobile network operators to block illicit mobile phone signals across entire prison sites. That will allow industry experts to work more creatively and effectively to block signals, which means that we will not require a court order to stop the illicit and harmful use of mobile phones in prison.

Prisons

James Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“welcomes the Government’s comprehensive proposals for major reform of the prison system set out in the White Paper; further welcomes plans for an extra 2,500 prison officers, to professionalise the prison service further and to attract new talent by recruiting prison officer apprentices, graduates and former armed service personnel; notes new security measures being introduced to tackle the illegal use of drones, phones and drugs which are undermining the stability of the prison system; welcomes the commitment to give governors in all prisons more powers and more responsibility to deliver reform whilst holding them to account for the progress prisoners make; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to set out for the first time the purpose of prisons in statute.”

Since becoming Justice Secretary, I have been clear that the violence in our prisons is too high. We have very worrying levels of self-harm and of deaths in custody. Tomorrow, we will see further statistics on violence for the period from July to September 2016. The last set of statistics reaffirmed why we need to take immediate action. I have been clear that these problems have been years in the making, and will not be fixed in weeks or months. In fact, in a piece he wrote this morning, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) acknowledged that there is no “magic fix” for these issues. We certainly did not hear any magic fixes in his speech today.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

There may be no magic fixes, but does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) that this Government should take responsibility? They should indeed take responsibility for banning novel psychoactive substances at the request of prison officers, and they should take responsibility for a plan to increase the number of prison officers—she has outlined that plan—again at the request of prison officers.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am absolutely determined to turn around our prisons. Unless our prisons are places of safety, they cannot be purposeful places where offenders can reform. That is why we have taken immediate action, as my hon. Friend says, to stabilise security in our prisons and to tackle the scourge of drugs, drones and phones. It is why we have secured additional funding of £100 million annually to recruit an extra 2,500 prison officers to strengthen our frontline and invest in wider justice reforms.

Prison Officers Association: Protest Action

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I can confirm that those increases will also apply in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

In response to concerns from prison officers, this Government criminalised psychoactive substances in prisons. My right hon. Friend has announced an increase in the number of prison officers, but will she inform the House what other steps have been taken to increase safety in prisons, including limiting the illegal use of mobile phones by prisoners?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; mobile phones and drones pose a serious security threat. We are working closely with the mobile phone companies to be able to block those mobile phones in prisons. We are also rolling out the use of body-worn cameras across the estate to give officers more protection, and we are offering prison governors specific support in dealing with the issues they face in their particular establishments.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will, of course, look at those numbers in detail. In fact, I am looking at them at the moment. As well as the number of staff, it is important to consider how staff are deployed and trained, and the powers that governors have to get the best out of staff working in prisons. I am looking at all those aspects, but I agree that staff are absolutely crucial to make our prisons work well.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

One of the causes of a lack of safety in prisons has been novel psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ban on the possession of those substances in prisons should really improve the safety of other prisoners and prison officers, if it is properly enforced?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that NPS have been a major issue in our prisons. When I visited HMP Norwich last week, I was pleased to see that it was using the new legislation to tackle that issue in the prison, to search people and to catch them out. HMP Norwich has succeeded in reducing the usage of such drugs already. I would like to see that type of programme happening more across our prison estate.

Policing and Crime Bill

James Berry Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

My fire service is provided through the Greater London Authority, and I know that should I want to talk to anybody about London’s fire service, I could talk to those elected GLA Members—and I do know their names—or to the Mayor. When people in my local authority want to have an impact on a local service, they tend to approach their local councillors, which I think is not a bad route, but the reforms would change that. People would not be able to go to their town hall to talk about services that have an impact on them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) heckles me gently in a low voice and says, “They would be elected.” I know that Newham might be unusual but its councillors are elected too, and certainly the councillors at the GLA are elected.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

But they are not elected to a specific responsibility, as PCCs are. People who vote for PCCs know they can hold them to account specifically for policing, and that will now be extended to the fire service.

[Lyn Brown]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the turnout last time for PCC elections was dismal. I hope it will be significantly better this time, but when I was on the doorsteps last year, in parts of the country other than my own little patch in London I did not find that people knew who their PCC was. I say gently to him that our constituents do not know that when they go to the polls next week they will be electing a PCC who might be taking over their fire service. The Bill will not have been enacted by then.

I think that the timing and, as I will explain, the way we have done this has been wrong. The consultation preceding the Bill did not seek the views of experts and specialists on the substance of the proposals. It set out how a PCC could assume control of a fire and rescue service and then asked consultees what they thought of the process. It did not ask them what they thought of the proposals themselves, and it did not ask whether the proposals would increase public safety or lead to better governance.

It is not in the impact assessment—that very thin impact assessment, which I am sure that the Members who sat on the Bill Committee will have read—but the Knight review of the future of the fire service recommended that PCC takeovers be attempted only if a rigorous pilot could identify tangible and “clearly set out benefits”. The Government chose to ignore this key recommendation and are instead proceeding before any evidence has been gathered about the likely benefits, costs and threats to the plan. It is utterly reckless. The impact assessment is threadbare. The only rationale offered for this intervention is the Government’s belief that there needs to be greater collaboration between emergency services. No one thinks otherwise, but the Government have not provided any justification of why it is more likely to occur under PCCs or any analysis of the current barriers to collaboration. It is policy without evidence or clear rationale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

In London, the service is run by a Mayor and elected councillors. It is not run by an individual whose other job is to be the police commissioner. I think there is a difference, and I believe that our communities will think there is a difference. We cannot prescribe how people think and what they worry about, but this concern has been raised with me.

[James Berry]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that her comments could be interpreted by the police as quite insulting? They do a lot of preventive and humanitarian work. As she knows, the hon. Lady’s submission comes right out of the Fire Brigades Union’s consultation document, which I also thought was quite insulting to the great work that our police officers do in the very areas that she highlighted.

[Lyn Brown]

The police I meet on my doorsteps and streets are dead pragmatic souls. They understand the sensitivities that some communities have: they treat some of my refugee communities with extraordinary sensitivity to overcome the natural barrier that is there. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a natural barrier. That is no slur on our police force; our police force are an enforcement agency, and not really a humanitarian service. The police are there to implement the law. Let us move on.

The Minister is not passing over a service that does not have some difficulties. The fire and rescue service has been subject to a cumulative cash cut of £236 million or 12.5% since 2010—and, of course, there is more to come. [Interruption.] Is the Government Whip trying to engage me? Does he want to intervene? It seems not. I just thought I would give him a chance.

Policing and Crime Bill (Sixth sitting)

James Berry Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

As the Bill proceeds through this House to the next, we need some movement from the Department of Health on how they will join up with the initiatives that the Minister has rightly taken to ensure that people with mental illness do not end up in police cells.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and speaks with authority on the subject. Does he recognise that there are some excellent local examples of clinical commissioning groups working well with the police? In Kingston we have a new project where the mental health trusts, the clinical commissioning group and the Met police have come together to provide just the kind of facility we are talking about. Although there is more to do nationally, there are some good local examples of the policy working.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the few good things that came out of the Health and Social Care Bill was that it allowed local providers to develop contracts out of the box, perhaps with the third sector and others, to provide good local services. I am on record as having said that. I have to say that in my own area and nationally that has not happened in practice because unfortunately the default position is that the contracts that have been awarded are so large that a lot of small, good voluntary organisations that could provide those services are not getting a look in.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the project in his constituency, but we need to ensure that there is uniformity across the piece. If we have a situation where the only option is for people to go to a police station or stay at home, that is not satisfactory.

Amendment 159 is also probing, aiming to explore and again bring pressure on the Department of Health. With regard to the time limits put in place around the place of safety, it is important that people are assessed quickly. It is no good waiting, in a police cell, hospital or any other facility, for a long time without assessment.

When being removed to a place of safety, it is important that the assessment is made quickly and undue time limits are not in place, for example, if someone has to travel a long distance to access a service. At the point of detention, a decision would start with the removal of the individual, certainly in terms of Lord Crisp’s report for the Commission on Acute Adult Psychiatric Care. That gives examples of people having to travel up to 50 km to access a mental health bed. If that were done in the back of a police car or van, it could take a long time and add to that individual’s distress. Again, I want to get the Minister’s thinking; I do not think for one minute that she wants anyone to be detained for an unduly long time without assessment. We are probing to find out what the Government are thinking in terms of trying to put pressure on the services that provide assessments. Can we get intervention at an earlier stage?

Amendment 158 is linked to the previous amendment and is another probing amendment. I welcome the reduction from 72 to 24 hours, showing again that the Government want to improve the situation. This probing amendment would further reduce the time from 24 to 12 hours. I would like to understand the Government’s rationale for agreeing to 24 hours. Under existing and proposed legislation, if someone is clearly incapable of assessment, that period can be extended. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has a target of three hours for someone to be assessed. I accept that there are difficulties: for example, if someone is intoxicated or has some other issue, with drugs or anything else, an assessment may not be possible for a long time, but I think that 24 hours is too long.

I have tabled these amendments to assist the Minister to press her Health colleagues to push the boundary. I accept what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about some excellent local provision. We do need a uniform service, but it would be completely wrong for individuals to be detained longer than necessary. I would not, for one minute, suggest that any healthcare professional, police officer or the Government, for that matter, want to detain people. Early diagnosis and assessment are in the interest of the individual and help to ensure an efficient use of time.

Let me deal with new clauses 11 and 12. I may push new clause 11 to a vote because it is important. One fear I have is that we have before us a Home Office Bill which deals with the problem faced by police forces up and down the country of people being detained under the Mental Health Act. The right aim of the Home Secretary is to ensure that no one is detained in a police cell. Certainly, her target for young people is welcome and she clearly wants to get to a position whereby no adult is detained in a police cell either. The problem I have with that is that we may achieve the target in terms of the police—a police authority or a police and crime commissioner may be able to stand up and say, “We have nobody in police cells who has been detained under the Mental Health Act”, but unless we have some indication of what has actually happened to those individuals, it could mask a problem. It could move away from the clear spotlight that has been put on this, certainly in terms of young people being detained in police cells.

If the answer to the written question that we ask every year is that nobody is being detained in police cells, that is good, but if people are languishing in the community without support, or are unable to access the treatment that they want, that would let the Department of Health—again, not the Home Office—off the hook in terms of its responsibility to those individuals. It is important that we have reliable statistics, because we need to see where there are pressures, which there certainly are. Having talked to my local police force, I know that forces throughout the country are dealing with a lot of mental illness problems that they are not qualified to deal with. The system has failed when people with such problems turn up in police cells, so we need to address that.

I feel passionately about new clause 12, because, very strangely, the only people who are not allowed advocates under the Mental Health Act are people who are sectioned under section 135 or 136. I am not sure why that was agreed when that Act passed through this place. It may have been to do with cost, and I understand that if we offer everyone who is sectioned an advocate, costs will be incurred, but we are talking about ensuring that people with mental illness are given the right approach and support. If someone is arrested for any other crime, they should have an advocate to speak on their behalf. Many people think that those with mental illness will have family members or others to help them, but there are clearly individuals who do not, so there is no one there to speak on their behalf. There are also individuals who go into crisis whose family members have never experienced anyone with mental illness and so will not know the right questions to ask or the rights of the individual.

The need for an advocate is particularly relevant to the issue I mentioned earlier: the home becoming a place of safety. Is someone really going to object to their home becoming the “place of safety” if they have no one to advocate for them or understand their position? I do not think they would. The default position would be that the easiest option is to stay at home, even though it might not be the best option for some individuals, so advocacy is very important.

As I said on Second Reading, sections 135 and 136 are unique powers that are, quite rightly, not used lightly. They are used to protect either the individual themselves or the people who might be in danger from their actions, but that still leads to people’s liberties being taken away from them. If the default position in this country is that someone who is arrested for a crime is entitled to legal representation, it is not too much to ask in this day and age that people who are detained—we are not talking about a massive number of cases—should at least, within a permitted period, be allowed an advocate to speak on their behalf and advise them. Properly done, that may well save time and money by ensuring that the individual takes the advice they are offered and by allowing the system—the police and health services—to ensure that that person is directed to the help they require.

Policing and Crime Bill (First sitting)

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I think we have established who we all are.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

May I add for completeness that in my practice as a barrister, I have represented a number of these organisations? That is my declaration of interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q May I use the Chair’s prerogative? There is an interesting dichotomy between, on one hand, someone who makes a misjudgment or human error and, on the other hand, someone who wilfully commits an act of misconduct. It is difficult to make a judgment about what was in their mind at the time when they took the action. How would you determine where that boundary is, or is it a matter of doing so case by case?

Chief Superintendent Curtis: That would come out in the investigation. Sometimes it is really clear. When dealing with corruption cases and so on, it is sometimes really clear that bad people are involved. That is where we should be focusing our efforts. Resources should go into taking bad and corrupt officers out of the service. We all want that to happen.

However, when people have made some sort of genuine error—we are all guilty of that and most of us have got away with it throughout our service when we have made mistakes—surely it is more important, particularly when a member of the public is concerned, that someone can hold their hand up, apologise and explain what happened and why they did it. We can learn from that, particularly when there are systemic issues for why the mistake happened. The service can learn from that and prevent it happening in future. We do not have that learning culture in the service because of the way the IPCC and, to be fair, forces conduct themselves. The initial assessment should make that much more clear.

If you look at the whole ethos behind the conduct regulations that were introduced in 2008, it was about making a much better distinction in the severity assessment phase. However, the severity assessment can be reviewed throughout the process, so as soon as it becomes clear from an investigation that the individual made a genuine mistake, the severity assessment should be reduced and the investigation should take a different tack.

[James Berry]

Q May I address this to the Police Federation? Mr White, you have already adopted on a non-statutory basis changes to your core purpose—your sort of mission statement. Can you tell us what benefits your organisation has seen?

Steve White: I think, first and foremost, that the public interest element, which I think is probably what you are talking about in terms of the way the federation operates, has always been there because the organisation has been about the welfare of our officers and the efficiency of the police service. Both those strands are in the public interest. If you have a happy, healthy and efficient police service, you will provide a better service to the public. That is effectively what it means. The point I am making is that we have always done that. We are now making it completely overt that that is what we feel the Police Federation contributes to policing in this country. I think it is right and proper to make that absolutely clear.

[James Berry]

Q I just want to come back to the point that my namesake, Mr Berry, made with respect to the barred list and officers who have left the service. The purpose of police misconduct proceedings is to promote public confidence and protect members of the public and colleagues in the force. If a serious but non-criminal allegation came to light about an officer some years after they had left, do you think the College of Policing or senior officers should have the ability to put that officer on some form of barred list or somehow flag up the fact that the allegation has arisen, so that they cannot re-enter, even if they are not going through a full-blown disciplinary procedure?

Steve White: The barred list is a new thing and, as I said earlier, we welcome officers’ ability to put themselves on it voluntarily, if you like, to deal with an issue once and for all. I guess this boils down to my argument about how long you let it happen and what the ultimate sanction will be. We are talking about non-criminal matters, so the ultimate sanction would be for someone to lose their job. If they have been out of the service for three or four years and there was a finding against the individual that was so serious they would lose their job, they are not in the employ anyway, so I am not quite sure what the benefit would be.

[James Berry]

Q I entirely agree with you and I made this point in the Chamber, but I am asking about someone being put on some form of barred list so that they cannot get back into the service. That is what the benefit would be to the public interest and public safety.

Steve White: How would that process work? We would have an allegation, but we would not have the power to investigate or even interview the individual, so we would just have to put them on a barred list. Is that justifiable? I get what you are saying, but I am not quite sure how it could work in practice.

[James Berry]

Q But you would support a voluntary type of system, such as the one that the General Medical Council has?

Steve White: Yes. Indeed, even if it does not go so far as a barred list, if such an individual did try to rejoin the service, one would hope that there would be something in place to indicate that there might have been a question mark somewhere. I don’t know, but I am not quite sure how it would work.

Chief Superintendent Curtis: I support Steve’s point about the opportunity for people to put themselves on to the list voluntarily. That would be a really useful inclusion. We need to look at proportionality here, and we need to think about how many cases in which these things come to light we are talking about. They are very few and far between, but there is an impact on individuals where it is a more minor case. How do you determine whether or not something is more serious? Should officers have this hanging over them? Remember that this is an employment issue, and we are not talking about a criminal issue. Should this be hanging over them for the rest of their life? I feel that that would be really unfair. We are trying to create something here to deal with a minority, but it could potentially impact on the majority. I think that that is disproportionate and unfair.

I would like to make a point regarding the five-year limit, or the publication for five years of the barred list. I wonder whether there could be some more flexibility around that. The point I raise is that there could be an officer with 26 years’ exemplary service who, due to circumstances that arise, ends up with a drink-driving conviction. They get dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and go on the barred list, and rightly so. Should that person be prevented from using the skills and experience that they gained over that 26 years, not as a police officer but in the wider policing family and supporting a policing role, because of a drink-driving conviction? I wonder whether it is a proportionate response to say that for five years that person can work in a whole range of organisations but, according to the Bill, not as a consultant for a private sector organisation that is working with the police force. There are a lot of limits on what that individual could do.

I wonder whether a solution to that might be for the independent chairs of panels, where we have them—that is a proposal that we as an association put forward—to make a recommendation in individual cases, in the light of the full facts of the circumstances, about the length of time someone should stay on a barred list. That would be instead of going for an absolute term of five years for everybody, no matter what the extent of the misconduct issue. There could be some flexibility around that, because it seems such a waste to the public of somebody’s skills and experience, and of those 26 years of exemplary service.

[James Berry]

Q May I ask a question of clarification? Is it the length of time for which an individual remains on the barred list or the length of time for which that list is published to which you object?

Chief Superintendent Curtis: I would say it is about being on the barred list.

[The Chair]

That is a very interesting thought. Thanks very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Could you say a word about coterminosity and the devolution settlement in your region—our region?

Councillor Hanratty: At the moment, the boundaries of police and fire are similar. The issue we have at the moment is that the ongoing discussion about Liverpool city region includes Halton, which is part of Cheshire. The issue among local authorities is whether Halton should come into the Liverpool city region. That is not for us to get involved with. We have said we will go along with the Liverpool city region bid. If it comes to the discussion in the next term and our ask for the city region, the fire service would happily engage with those discussions, as we do at the moment.

[James Berry]

Q Mr Wrack, this question is to you. In your response to the spending review, you said that the Government’s modelling of the fire service was dangerous and ludicrous. You described the PCC proposals in the Bill as “parochial” and “maverick-driven”. You said they would put the public at risk. Today, again, you are saying that the proposals are dangerous. I have two questions. First, would you agree that using this kind of language is simply scaremongering and brave firefighters will keep the public safe, regardless of what model they work under?

Secondly, would you agree that these comments are driven by your view of PCCs—you made clear in the document that they are a failed model? In fact, many PCCs are doing a very good job and we will hear from some in this Committee.

Matt Wrack: In terms of the PCC model, we do not apologise: we are critical of that model. We think there is a good tradition of local government in the UK; it is a very good model, and fire sits within it. As I have said, we are slightly alarmed that no one from the elected member side is giving evidence in terms of their experience—outside the mets—of delivering a local authority fire and rescue service in the current situation.

But putting that to one side, the PCCs are in. We are now debating the question whether there should be the power for PCCs to put in a bid to take over the fire and rescue service. We are very concerned about that for a number of reasons, which we have put in our response to the consultation. That is on grounds of professionalism. I think some of my colleagues on the panel have highlighted that. The fire service is a unique brand that has pioneered collaborative working in many areas of public services, has pioneered preventive work and has pioneered community engagement. Anything that puts that at risk should be closely scrutinised, and we think there are risks in terms of the model that is proposed—the PCC takeover—of doing exactly that.

We have not got on to it, but there is also the question of the single employer model. Clearly, as a trade union, we have concerns about our members’ terms and conditions, as we are, rightly, entitled to do. There is a whole host of questions in relation to that area that have not been answered in terms of where we are with the Bill currently.

[The Chair]

I want to be careful about this. It is a perfectly legitimate line of questioning, but I am anxious that this session should not become about just one issue or one organisation, because there is a lot of expertise to be had, for the benefit of the Committee and therefore the Bill. It is a legitimate line of questioning, but I do not want it to dominate the proceedings. Do you want to come back on that, James?

[James Berry]

Q The reason why I asked the question was that they are very serious allegations. No one wants the dangerous situation that Mr Wrack described in his written documents so, Mr Etheridge, could I ask whether you agree with the FBU’s analysis as it was put in the written documents to which I have referred?

Chief Fire Officer Etheridge: Partly.

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Jack Dromey.

Police Funding Formula

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I welcome this report, and let me start by saying that the Minister was brave to tackle the issue of police funding, for two reasons. The first is that it is always going to be difficult to resolve a funding formula without acrimony unless one has at one’s disposal sufficient resources to fund every force to the level of the best funded; clearly, those resources were not going to be available to him. The second reason is that funding a police force across the whole UK—or certainly in England and Wales—is always going to be intensely difficult, given the great diversity in policing needs across the counties of those countries. But it is right that taxpayer funds for an essential service such as the police are allocated fairly and transparently.

I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that the police need to provide evidence of the work that they actually do. Often that work will go well beyond what we understand to be traditional policing work in the office of constable. The police pick up a large amount of slack that is not picked up by other public services or private sector organisations, and they do a huge amount more than many people appreciate.

The National Audit Office published a report showing that a significant number of police forces were not aware of the demand on their own services. It is incumbent on police forces to ensure that they are aware of that demand, whether for classic policing or wider functions. They must make their demands clear to the Home Office, and, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, the Home Office must then make it clear to those forces what services they are actually funded to perform.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recognise that cuts being made in other public services—in the area of mental health, for example, where there are problems in accessing beds—is putting pressure on police forces up and down the country, as in extreme circumstances they have to use cells to house people with mental health problems?

[James Berry]

In fact, there is more mental health funding for front-line policing than there has ever been. It is very important that the police work in tandem with clinical commissioning groups to ensure, for example, that there are nurses who can go out on patrol with them to tackle mental health issues, rather than bringing in those people to police cells—often the very worst place for someone suffering from a mental ill health episode. In my neighbouring borough of Richmond, I know that the police are already doing that in conjunction with the CCG.

There was a pause in the review of the funding formula, the financial implications of which were worked out by one police and crime commissioner. I did pause before signing up to the suggestion in our report that the likely figures should be revealed before the end of the consultation. The aim is to arrive at a sound set of principles, but it is difficult to obtain a balanced response from people who stand to lose out from an allocation based on a principle, however sound it might be, because their elected responsibility as police and crime commissioners is to maximise the amount of funding available to them to perform their statutory functions.

The funding formula needs to recognise the diversity of policing in the UK, which is very difficult when we are trying to reach a formula at a national level. Our report references the need for additional funding in areas where policing of minority communities is a prevalent issue. In my constituency of Kingston, we have the largest Korean population in Europe. We have an excellent Korean liaison officer provided by the police, which would not be needed elsewhere in the country, and they provide a vital function in ensuring a link between the police and the Korean community.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) made it clear that there are many other issues in London that provide a positive case for ensuring that the capital grant in London is protected and that the special position of the Metropolitan police is respected. The issue of diverse communities was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, and the issue of policing pubs and bars was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). That is plainly volume policing.

We need more police officers on the streets at kicking-out times for the pubs and clubs, which are more numerous in London than anywhere else in the country. The same applies to the threat of terrorism, which is most significant in London. I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have responded to that matter in the light of the Paris atrocities by significantly increasing the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers keeping us safe.

The same applies to the various types of crime tackled centrally on behalf of other police forces, such as online fraud. We have seen a massive explosion in such fraud over the past four or five years and although much more needs to be done and much more funding needs to be made available to deal with it anything like comprehensively enough, a large part of it is tackled by the Metropolitan police’s very impressive Operation FALCON and the City of London police’s Action Fraud. Such crime is perpetrated across the country, but is largely dealt with by the police in our two capital police forces. There is a need to protect the special status of London in any new funding formula.

Where I depart from the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow West is where he painted a rather less than rosy picture of the state of policing in London. Although there has been a reduction in officer numbers, a less rigid approach to neighbourhood policing has allowed a more nimble model that certainly works well in my borough of Kingston and elsewhere across London. Of course, crime has dropped dramatically over the past five years and we have the police to thank for that. Even if they have lower overall numbers, they have a significantly larger proportion on the frontline and do a fantastic job that has resulted in a massive reduction in crime.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to oppose the merger of borough command units as well? If they succeed with Harrow, Brent and Barnet, I would have thought that a Kingston-Sutton merger might be next. Does he agree with me that that is a step too far and that the Policing Minister might usefully intervene with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to that effect?

[James Berry]

I know that locally there will be mixed feelings if that is proposed in south-west London, but I do know that the reforms brought in by this Government and the previous Government mean that these matters are entirely in the hands of the local police body, which in the case of London is MOPAC, or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, rather than the Policing Minister. They are an operational matter for MOPAC and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have not seen the proposals yet, but I would certainly want to be reassured that there was no less democratic accountability and no less focus on local policing if that was going to happen in Kingston. I will wait to see the proposals and I am sure that all London MPs will have something to say if and when they are published by the Met police.

The Committee’s report records a rather unhappy period for the Home Office in which the Minister came to this House and apologised unreservedly, which was recognised in the report. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely committed to putting the situation right. The Government are to be commended for attempting to create a fair funding formula, which is recognised in the report, and that is something that previous Governments have not tried to do.

The terms of the funding formula are yet to be decided. It is no easy task; I certainly do not envy the Minister. Indeed, it is such a tricky task that both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Policing Minister cannot be in the Chamber for this important debate. No doubt they are scratching their heads and working out what their alternative funding formula would be. I welcome the Home Affairs Committee’s report and am pleased to have participated in its production. I am sure that the Minister will give it his full consideration in deciding the eventual outcome and I am sure that although there will be some winners and some losers, the public will be able to see that the funding formula at which the Minister arrives is fair to all forces. I hope that it will protect London, along with the special and vital functions performed by the Metropolitan and City of London police to keep us safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and perhaps he will show us the consultation that took place to show the support that exists for the new role of police support volunteer. I would welcome the opportunity to have a look at that.

To go back to funding for a second, does the Minister really consider it a triumph for his colleagues the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) to claim credit for a 4.6% rise in the police precept paid by the taxpayers of the west midlands to make up for the money being given to places such as Surrey and Northamptonshire? Is that how we will be forced to plug the gap—by paying more pounds for fewer police in our area?

We are repeatedly advised that crime has fallen and therefore, by implication, the Government’s cuts are justified. I assume that the Minister does not dispute the claims of the Office for National Statistics that crime rose by 6% nationally for the year ending September 2015, and that violence against the person rose by 13%. I do not dispute that some types of crime have fallen, but I am not interested in trying to manipulate the figures to mislead anyone. Is it not important that the Government give a full picture and come clean on what the figures actually mean?

[James Berry]

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that that report stated that there had been an increase in the recording of crime, and that the reporting and recording of crime have improved a great deal, which explains some of the rise that has been seen?

[Steve McCabe]

I concede that the report actually said that certain types of sexual offences were being reported differently, which accounted for the rise in that area. The report also clearly pointed out that violence against the person had risen by 13%, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. As I said, we need clarity on the figures rather than using them to try to paint a picture that may be misleading.

There is one more point I would like to make. As I indicated earlier, the West Midlands force faces the most significant challenge of terrorism and extremism outside London, and we recently suffered a spate of gun crime in parts of Birmingham. The chief constable is set to increase the number of armed officers, and I understand that that is in line with Home Office advice. West Midlands police has about 260 armed officers, and an uplift in line with Home Office thinking would mean a further 130 officers. Where will the funding for those additional armed police officers come from, and where will the personnel come from? Will the force be expected to recruit additional officers, or will those engaged in neighbourhood policing or response policing be required to transfer to those new duties, further depleting those available for existing police tasks?

It is not bluff and bluster that we need today, but honest answers to legitimate questions and queries from people such as myself, who are genuinely worried that the formula, the funding and the rhetoric do not match the heroic efforts of West Midlands police to meet the demands of the community that it seeks to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) prayed for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker—but indulgence was not what I was praying for. What we have just seen is what we usually get from the SNP when they turn on something that they agreed to with the victim mentality that, as I have said on numerous occasions, it has raised to a new art form in this House. We end up with the idea that somehow this measure is everybody else’s fault, but the hon. Lady’s Government agreed to it so I do not think that she can try to delude electors in Scotland that it is somehow the fault of English Members and the Government at Westminster. Apart from the sense of grievance, which we have heard on many occasions from the Scottish National party in the House in recent weeks and months, the hon. Lady did not cover anything that was relevant to the debate.

I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report on reform of the funding formula, and I pay tribute to its Chair for his opening speech. It has been said numerous times that this issue needs to be considered for years and in a logical way. I do not disagree with that, because we must consider in detail how we fund our police, as that is an important issue for our constituents. I do not believe that how the Government went about that had anything to do with having a serious hard look at putting forward a fair funding formula.

One of the Committee’s criticisms—it was made not only by chief constables but by many PCCs—was that the consultation was rushed. It started on 21 July 2015 and closed on 15 September, a period of eight weeks. The Minister then wrote to PCCs and chief constables on 8 October, three weeks after the consultation closed, providing detailed refinements, setting out for the first time indicative force levels and inviting further comment.

[James Berry]

I asked the permanent secretary why the consultation was over such a short period when he gave evidence. He said that the Government could have gone for a much longer period or tried to have the funding formula arranged before the spending review. The Department made that decision. Whether or not it was the right decision is a matter for debate, but the decision was to have the formula in place before the spending review.

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what was going on. We were to have the formula wrapped up going into the spending review, but what we are in store for is exactly what has happened in local government funding. We did not get a fair local government funding formula: we have a skewed formula that moves resources from the most deprived communities in this country to—lo and behold!—the more wealthy parts, which are represented by Conservatives.

In local government funding, just by chance—hon. Members should not ask me how this has happened— 85% of the gainers happened to be in Conservative seats. I suspect that that is what was going on with the police funding formula. The Government had not reckoned with the PCC for Devon and Cornwall, who questioned the process.

We must also put the formula against the other things that the Government and their previous incarnation, the coalition, have done to policing in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I did not speak in the recent debate on police funding, but many concerns were expressed by Labour Members then, and those concerns remain. There is much uncertainty and worry in police forces across the country about current and future funding.

It was just a few months ago, in November, that Members were in the Chamber making a case for policing to be protected from the ravages of Tory cuts. Labour Members joined others, and people throughout the country, in raising concerns about policing cuts generally. The Government had originally planned to cut police budgets by more than 20%, but at the last moment the Chancellor announced, in his spending review statement to the House, that there would be no cuts, adding that there would be real-terms protection for police funding. However, it seems that the Tories are still intent on cutting police funding. Today we are discussing reform of the police funding formula. The Government may have tried to deflect attention from what they are doing by saying that there will be no cuts, but the fact remains that the level of police funding to which the Government are committed for the next few years will go down.

We know that the Tories had to cancel the last review of the police funding formula last autumn because they had miscalculated, using the wrong figures. Last week, Labour pleaded with the Government to think again before imposing further cuts and forcing local people to pay more to make up for them, because they are expecting police forces to raise extra money in local taxes to compensate for those Tory cuts. No matter how the Government try to dress things up, a cut is a cut. What we need is a fair funding formula—a formula that is fair to the less affluent, high-need, high-crime areas—but we are not being given that now.

I speak as someone who grew up with a huge amount of respect for the police, and for the job that they do. I worked closely with neighbourhood policing teams for many years in my previous role as a county councillor, and I have always appreciated the professionalism of police officers who put their lives on the line every day. Unfortunately, under this Government we have seen the break-up of the neighbourhood policing model that was the last Labour Government’s achievement. Neighbourhood policing brought police officers out of their stations and into communities, building up trust and bringing down crime, but the positive steps that were taken under Labour are being reversed.

If the Government proceed with their cuts, and unless a proper funding formula is developed, matters will become worse. In the last six months alone, a further 1,300 police officers have been lost; that is the equivalent of a whole force in some areas. The Tories had already cut police funding by 25% during the last Parliament, and the most recent losses bring the total reduction in the number of police officers to a staggering 18,000 since 2010. Officers are already paying the price for the Government’s actions. The reduction in their numbers has put greater pressure on those who remain, who have found their workloads soaring and workplace pressures intensifying. For instance, 27% are working more than 49 hours a week, which is over the legal limit.

Crime might have fallen in some areas, and the police are trying to reduce crime, but policing is about much more than whether crime is falling. It is about visible policing and providing reassurance to the residents of our communities. We also know that crime is changing, rather than simply falling. When the 6 million cybercrimes and online crimes are included in the official crime statistics, crime levels nearly double.

With the most serious and violent crimes on the rise again, this is the worst possible time to cut police funding, but that is what this Chancellor is doing. He said he would protect police budgets, but we are facing more years of cuts. Make no mistake, the police service is under pressure and the morale of police officers is at a very low ebb. Police officers I have spoken to feel that the Government do not understand or appreciate the passion and commitment that they have for the job they do. We should be focusing on cutting crime, not on cutting the police.

One of the few areas to have seen an increase in the policing family is the police and community support officers in Wales. Since 2010, South Wales police has increased the number of PCSOs by 77 and Gwent has seen an increase of 35. This is due to funding support from the Welsh Labour Government, who have supported a total of 500 PCSOs across Wales despite significant cuts to their own budget by the Tory Government. My constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is covered by two forces: South Wales on the Merthyr side and Gwent on the Rhymney side. In the next financial year, South Wales police will see a real-terms cut of £3 million and Gwent a cut of £1.5 million. The need for support from the police service is significant in many of the communities that I represent, but with this level of cuts, that support is under threat.

As I have said, this is not the time to be making cuts to services such as policing. The safety of our communities is too important to put at risk. The people who live in our communities need adequate protection from the police service, but the lack of a fair funding formula will put that at risk as it will not provide the police with the resources that they need to do the job.

[James Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the shadow Home Secretary’s comment, made on the Floor of the House, that the police could take a funding cut of 10%?

[Gerald Jones]

That was not the situation that the shadow Home Secretary described, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is trying to misrepresent what was said. The Conservatives were talking about cuts of 20%-plus at that point, so let us get this into perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Let me repeat that the right hon. Gentleman’s insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form. It extended to last year’s police funding formula consultation process, which was widely agreed to be an unmitigated disaster—there are no other words for it. The Home Affairs Committee said:

“It is regrettable that the Minister proceeded on this timescale, and it is unfortunate that he accepted that advice from officials. It is not surprising that, as a result, the process ended in chaos”—

I repeat that police funding in Britain ended in chaos—

“with an Urgent Question in Parliament and the decision to suspend the whole review.”

[James Berry]

The reason for that, as is clear in the Home Affairs Committee’s report, is that a civil servant made a fundamental error in calculations, for which the Minister came to the House to apologise and for which he was commended in this report.

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, and made Inspector Clouseau look like a completely competent professional. The Committee, not content with giving the Minister one caution, went on to give him a warning.

“The Home Office stated on multiple occasions throughout this process that it wished to engage with police forces but then created a process which made it impossible for them to do so.”

Question 20 in the police formula review consultation document asked:

“How long should the transitional period last? Please explain your answer.”

What is telling was the response from Merseyside’s PCC, Jane Kennedy—among other roles, she was a former Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for security and the justice system, and is someone who knows a thing or two about these matters—who said:

“Given the lack of detail with regard to the magnitude of the proposed changes I am unable to give an informed response.”

It was a former Minister with responsibility for security who said that to Her Majesty’s Government. There was no political point scoring and no histrionics, simply a factual and unambiguous response to a flawed consultation process from a PCC concerned about the service for which she is responsible and for which she is held accountable.

There are many other even more interesting nuggets in the Committee’s report, but I will not take up the time of the House regurgitating them, because, as with any regurgitation, it is not a very pleasant experience for those watching, including for the right hon. Gentleman.

The reality in this sorry affair is that I am not too concerned about the embarrassment of Members on the Government Benches who felt the need to produce such a damning report—consensus was the word used—or the embarrassment of the Home Secretary or the Policing Minister for that matter. What I am concerned about is how the Government’s botched, incompetent and chaotic formula review created uncertainty in communities across the country and the effect that that had on the morale of police officers of all ranks, not to mention the exasperation caused to any number of police and crime commissioners of all political hues. Rural areas and communities have expressed concerned about the numbers of police officers because of the sparsity factor. That puts paid to the claim by the Home Secretary that size does not matter. How many of her colleagues on the Government Benches would voluntarily agree to a reduction in police numbers in their own areas?

Presumably, the logic of the Home Secretary is that they would be falling over themselves volunteering to take police officers off the street. There would be few takers for that—so much for the argument about quality over quantity. I also wonder how many Members on the Government Benches are prepared to call public meetings in their constituencies trumpeting the need for fewer bobbies on the beat because the Home Secretary thinks that quality, not quantity, counts. How many Government Members have the courage of the Home Secretary’s convictions? Does the Home Secretary have the courage of her convictions? What a great slogan in Maidenhead: “Vote for me and have fewer police officers on the streets.” After all, it is quality, not quantity, that counts. If the Home Secretary is so taken with having fewer police officers, let her have fewer in her constituency and not in mine. If the Policing Minister is so enamoured with having fewer police officers from Apsley to Woodhall, he should put it on his website for all to see. Perhaps he could have a photo in his gallery or a spot the difference competition before and after the implementation of a new botched policing formula.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

James Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I rise to make four brief points. First, on the level of funding, before the autumn statement, the Home Office, like many other Departments, was asked to model reductions in spending, and the police were preparing for cuts of 20% to 25%. Labour said that the police could withstand cuts of 10%, but the Chancellor protected police funding, and I welcome that protection, as do many police leaders. The most impressive responses from the policing community came from people such as Chief Constable Sara Thornton, who recognised the need not only for sufficient funding, but for the police to reform and to adapt to the changing demands on their services.

My second point is about flexibility. It is important that the police are flexible to meet the demands on their services. A National Audit Office study reveals that the police do not have a sufficient understanding of those demands, so it is important that they both understand and adapt to meet them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[James Berry]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was wronged earlier, because Durham is, in fact, the most efficient police force in the country. I think he wanted to make that point earlier.

[Mr Jones]

I wanted to put the record straight for the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) rightly says, Durham is the only constabulary in the country that has received an “outstanding” rating for efficiency five times from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inspectors. In spite of that, however, it is going to have to save about £3 million over the next year. The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has said that the cash settlement has not been reduced, but other demands mean that the number of officers in County Durham will have to be reduced, even though it has already been cut by some 400 over the past 10 years.

[James Berry]

I am sure the Minister will deal with that in his response. I do not recognise those statistics, but I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s chief constable for running such a fantastically efficient force.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Berry]

No.

The point about flexibility is clearly lost on the Labour party. I recently attended a Westminster Hall debate in which a London Labour MP insisted on a top-down, inflexible model of ward policing in London, without recognising the fact that some wards needed more policing than others, as is the case in Kingston. That is why I endorse the decision taken by the Home Secretary and the Chancellor to be flexible themselves, including increasing funding both for counter-terrorism policing and firearms officers, which is what the police asked for, at a time when we face an unprecedented terrorism threat, and for a new drive to co-ordinate the fight against fraud, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, has increased, particularly on the internet.

Thirdly, police funding has to go hand in hand with reform. Thanks to the coalition Government—particularly their Conservative policies—there has been an increase in the democratic control of policing through police and crime commissioners. Important reforms have also been made to the police misconduct regime, including, most recently, opening up misconduct hearings to the public, to increase transparency and public confidence. The College of Policing has been created to set standards and guidance for police. I declare that I am an associate of that college and occasionally give lectures there.

The Home Secretary’s police reform agenda continues, including funding to encourage collaboration between forces, which is not a top-down model like that pursued under the last Government, but a bottom-up model. There are excellent examples of collaboration, such as that between West Mercia and Warwickshire police. There is also funding to encourage blue light collaboration, which not only saves money, but increases the efficiency and effectiveness of our blue light services.

My fourth and final point is about policing in London and in Kingston, which has the second lowest crime rate in London. We have an excellent borough commander in Glenn Tunstall, who leads a fantastic local police force, which is part of the fabric of the local community and does us in Kingston proud. Tomorrow I will host a public meeting with officers in Surbiton, to talk about the excellent work that they, led by Sergeant Trudy Hutchinson, do to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. I pay tribute to them.

In Kingston town centre, the Conservative council has made good on our campaign to increase the number of police officers by using the Police Act 1996 to buy extra police officers and making use of the Mayor of London’s “buy one, get one free” offer. That has had a fantastic impact on the rate of arrests and on safety in the town centre.

My constituents do not spend all their time in Kingston with its low crime rate; many of them also come into central London, where, of course, crime rates are higher, as is the threat of terrorism. That is why I got together with other London MPs, including my constituency neighbour—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to talk to the Policing Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor, in order to ensure that police funding in London was protected. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has claimed that it was Labour that forced a change in police funding, but I am afraid that that is simply not correct. Clear calls were made by Conservative Members, and the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister listened to them and protected our budget. As a result, the number of police community support officers in London is not going to be cut, and the number of authorised firearms officers will be increased considerably. There will also be increased funding for counter-terrorism, and our capital city grant has been protected.

To return to the issue of flexibility, certain areas of crime have increased, despite the overall downward trend in the UK and in London, but I am sure that the Metropolitan police and the police in Kingston and the rest of the country will be flexible to meet the increased demand on their services and that they will meet those challenges.

I welcome the report. I am delighted that funding has been protected in London and that the Government are putting the protection of people at home and abroad first. I thank the Minister for what he has done for policing in London.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is because the allegations are so serious that we have to investigate them properly. The independent improvement board will both investigate what went on and ensure that children are safe. When any organisation fails in the delivery of public services, as G4S did at Rainsbrook, we will take steps to remove the contract, and a new organisation has been given that contract. Of course, if G4S has failed in this regard, then we will take all steps necessary to keep children safe.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to improve safety in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

15. What is his Department doing to improve safety in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

Violence in prisons has increased in recent years. The nature of the offenders who are currently in custody and the widespread availability of novel psychoactive substances have contributed to prisons becoming less safe. There is no simple single solution that will improve safety in prisons, but we are making progress. We are trialling the use of body-worn cameras and training sniffer dogs to detect NPS, but ultimately the only way to reduce violence is to give governors the tools to more effectively reform and rehabilitate prisoners.

[James Berry]

One threat to safety inside and outside prisons is the ability of inmates to access mobile phones. On Friday, a serving prisoner at Rochester prison was sentenced to 12 years for arranging the supply of reactivated firearms via a mobile phone from his prison cell. Random checks are only so good and prison officers do their best, but I think it is time to cut off the head of the snake and go for mobile phone jamming devices.

[Andrew Selous]

We already employ a number of measures. We have body orifice scanning chairs, metal detecting wands, signal detectors and blockers, and specially trained dogs. My hon. Friend is right that we need to refocus and redouble our efforts in this area, particularly in respect of the use of blockers and detectors. I assure him that the Secretary of State and I are fully engaged in this area.