Policing

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this debate. You have doubtless heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a khaki election, and we have the green and brown of the khaki coalition looking after police interests in England and Wales. It is ideal for me to have the opportunity to respond to the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate and to what I see as the four main criticisms made of Government policy in the Opposition motion. They are as follows: first, that the Government are not spending enough money—a recurring theme; secondly, that we are insufficiently authoritarian when considering the right balance between the power of the state and the liberties of the individual; thirdly, that we are too hasty, as a Government, in our enthusiasm for greater transparency and public engagement in policing; and fourthly—this is an overarching theme—that we are too enthusiastic overall about reform of the police service.

I shall go through those criticisms in the short time available. The first is that the Government are not spending enough money—this is what the motion describes as the “wrong-headed” pursuit of greater efficiency and value for money. It is, of course, always relevant to remind the House that the previous Government, having promised to abolish boom and bust, ended up presiding over an economy that went bust. The new Government came to office with our country looking down the barrel of a gun—we had a bigger deficit than Greece when we took office—and we had to make some difficult decisions to get to grips with that deficit. We have reduced the deficit, but this country is still borrowing a billion pounds every three days. Against that backdrop, it is just not credible to carry on spending money—borrowed money—with reckless impunity. The Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit, and as a service spending £14 billion a year, the police can and must make their fair share of the savings needed.

Underlying Labour’s analysis is a fundamentally flawed case, and I will sum it up for hon. Members. According to Labour, “The more money you spend, the better the results you get”—never mind cutting bureaucracy or getting good value for the taxpayer; it is spend, spend, spend. The problem is that the results do not bear out Labour’s analysis. Last week, the most recent independent crime statistics were published. I am sorry to disappoint Labour Members, but crime has fallen. It has fallen by 6% over the past year and by 10% in the two years since this Government came to office. It has fallen by 12% in the last year—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Bryant, I ask you to stop shouting across the Dispatch Box now.

[Mr Browne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was just reminding the House that the Government have presided over a 10% fall in crime in the past two years. The latest figures show that crime is lower in England and Wales than at any time since the official survey started in 1981. Chief constables are rising to the challenge of making efficiency savings and providing greater value for money. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said:

“The front line is being protected”.

Police reform is working. We have swept away central targets and reduced police bureaucracy. That shows that how the police are deployed, rather than their absolute numbers, is the key to cutting crime.

[Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Before I give way, let me put it like this to Labour: the best way to measure the success of a service is not whether we have spent more and more money on it, but whether we have got better and better results.

[Diana Johnson]

So does the hon. Gentleman agree with what his leader said—that if there were an additional 10,000 police officers, 82,265 crimes would be solved each year? Does the Minister support that, or was the Deputy Prime Minister talking nonsense—again?

[Mr Browne]

I think that what matters is what one does with the police. The team that wins the premier league is not the one with the biggest squad; it is the one that gets the best results, and that is what we are trying to do in policing.

We see a hallmark of old Labour, new Labour and the exciting latest version that is somewhere in between in the second criticism in the motion: the casual authoritarianism of criticising the Government for

“restricting the use of CCTV”.

Yes, we do believe that there should be some restrictions on CCTV. We are striking the right balance between enabling the police to use modern investigative techniques such as CCTV and DNA evidence, and the police are using those techniques to great effect, but at the same time protecting the right of innocent members of the public to not be subjected to constant and unregulated surveillance.

Labour’s third criticism reveals hostility to the idea of having democratically elected commissioners to increase accountability and give the public greater say in the policing of their community. That was a recurrent theme of the debate. That hostility, it must be said, is not shared by many Labour ex-Ministers, including two recent MPs, Tony Lloyd and Alun Michael, or by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott. If Labour Members are concerned about the election turnout, perhaps they should start by getting those three to pull their fingers out, get campaigning and explain the rationale for their candidacy. Every Member of this House, elected as we are, should want election turnouts to be strong, and I am delighted that the profile of the elections is rising in Cleethorpes, Brigg and Goole, and Denton and Reddish. I believe that it will rise across England and Wales in the coming weeks.

Labour has to make up its own mind. During the debate, we have heard criticism of the Government on the one hand for spending too much money on PCC elections, and on the other hand, for not spending enough. Whatever the turnout, the House can be sure of this: the new PCCs will have a stronger mandate than the police authorities they are replacing. Many police authority members from all parties have done sterling work on behalf of their communities. We recognise and applaud that, but with the best will in the world, police authorities were hardly delivering public accountability and transparency: in the most recent survey, only 7% of the public were even aware that police authorities existed. We should not be fearful of giving the public a say, and parties in this House should not be discouraging people from participating in a democratic process. I hope that people will find out more and that they will vote.

[Alan Johnson]

Probably less than 7% of the public are aware that the hon. Gentleman exists. Does that mean he is doing a bad job?

[Mr Browne]

In the area where I stood for election, I got 49% of the vote, and I hope the figure will go up next time, but we will see; one can never take anything for granted. Labour got 5% in my area, which is 1% more than UKIP.

The final theme that runs through the Labour motion is deep, cautious, conservative resistance to fresh thinking and change. Beyond spraying around more and more borrowed money, we see no ideas, no imagination and a closed mind to reform. It is easy for Opposition parties to lapse into idle oppositionism—we have all been there—and in many ways Labour today reminds me of what the Liberal Democrats were like before we became a serious party of Government. The House may be interested to know that that trait is not new to Labour in opposition. Let me quote what a previous shadow Home Secretary said when his party was last out of government. I shall reveal the name: Tony Blair—

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House proceeded to a Division.