Police

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Being impaired when driving a motor vehicle is just that. When the legislation was taken through the House, that argument was put forward, but it is the responsibility of drivers who are driving a vehicle on the road to know what is in their bloodstream. This is a very important area, which is why I alluded to the need to ensure that the advice from the pharmacist when the drugs are given out is not confined to advising whether to take them after or before a meal, or not to operate heavy machinery. The hon. Gentleman is right, but it will always be the responsibility of people driving a vehicle to know what is in their bloodstream and whether it will impair them.

The level has been set by a scientific committee, so this is not about people who take one co-codamol that morning being over the limit; it is about ensuring that we have the necessary technology. Technology is moving fast and we expect another manufacturer to have type-approval on a roadside saliva test in the next few months. We expect to ensure that we keep officers on the streets as much as possible, because the time involved in implementing the existing scheme means that they are tied up for too long.

We also expect the technology to come through soon so that we have a roadside evidential base for drink-driving. At the moment our legislation is based back in the 1960s, when the breathalyser bag provided the base, then we could arrest and the machinery was in the station. If we can get an evidential base at the roadside, that will eliminate a whole swath of the bureaucracy that we have to go through to ensure that we get the necessary conviction of impaired drivers. Such drivers cause death, dismay and injury on our roads every day. We should not in any way be lightening the pressure on drink-drivers as we work on drug-drivers.

The most obvious piece of technology that will free up officers’ time is body-worn cameras. They are freeing up time, protecting officers and giving us an evidence base. We have already seen, in the brilliant work in Hampshire, Kent and other forces, that when the evidence is put to the accused, they almost immediately say—on advice from their solicitors, usually—that they will plead guilty. The amount of assaults on officers is down. When officers arrive somewhere on a Friday night obviously wearing cameras, the dispersal is interesting to watch, as I have seen myself from the videos.

We need to take things further. We need to ensure that the body-worn camera cannot be ripped easily from the body armour—some of the early cameras could be because they were on a clip system—and we are looking into that in my own force in Hertfordshire. We also need to ensure that the evidence that the camera is capturing cannot be tampered with. In other words, someone might rip the camera off and dispose of it, so we need to stream away the evidence from the scene. At the same time I am working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and the rest of the criminal justice system to ensure that the technology flows through the system. When officers store the evidence, whether in the cloud or a secure system, the CPS should be able to enter that system and see the evidence without having to wait for it to be downloaded or burnt on to a CD-ROM.

I have also been asked whether Kent could trial statements being taken on camera, so we would not need to have them transcribed. That could be exciting, because it could put officers on to the streets for much longer, so that they did not have to sit in the stations transcribing something picked up on the body-worn camera. Such developments are world-leading. Police forces from around the world are coming to see us to see how we are using the technology. Only the other day, at a two-day international crime and policing conference in London, leading academics and other criminal justice professionals from around the world came to see how we had managed to lower not only crime, but the costs of it—in other words, how we were getting more bang for our buck—and to see the technology. Australia, for example, has had roadside drug testing for many years, but the Australian police need to take a 44-tonne articulated lorry to the roadside in order to test everyone passing through, which has huge cost implications. They are very interested in the technology that we have type-approved and are introducing.

We are still in difficult economic times. Money to the police has been cut, which was a difficult decision to make. Police forces around the country have predominantly done well at dealing with the cut. Most of them have budgeted for 2015-16 and the review for 2016-17 is still taking place—consultation continues to work—and I suggest that all colleagues, whether in the Chamber or not, work with their local police to see how best that consultation can be used for the benefit of their constituents.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to make several points. The Minister congratulated the police on the reduction in crime overall, and I concur with that, but a real issue remains. For example, in London and in my constituency in particular, the safer neighbourhood teams were introduced and were extremely popular and successful, but they are now being penalised as a result of their success. The teams reduce crime, but then lose resources, which are shifted elsewhere, and crime increases; we go around in circles time and time again. It is important that discussions on the new formula result in a new settlement that will reward those forces that are successfully operating to reduce crime, giving them consistency of funding over time. The undermining of the safer neighbourhood teams is deeply unpopular in my constituency.

[Mike Penning]

Recently, I had long discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on that very subject. Only the other day I was at Hendon, sadly the day before the passing-out parade before the commissioner of about 400 new officers. I understand that by March the Metropolitan police will be just under the 32,000 level; it will then recruit at 175 per month, which will reflect the steady level of natural wastage in London. That is a remarkable feat achieved by the Mayor of London for the people of London. I accept that in the old days the Policing Minister would look at things in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is now a matter for the commissioner and for the Mayor. Such matters would also be for the mayor and commissioner in Manchester, if it is successful in its bid to proceed with the mayoral system, which will include the police.

Key to everything is that we have managed remarkably well to reduce crime, as the hon. Gentleman said, and at the same time to reduce the cost of policing. The public’s opinion of our police in general has never been better. I always say, “Yes, I have the honour of being the police Minister for the best police force in the world.” Some police officers let us down, but they are a tiny minority and we should be proud of every single one of our officers, who represent us every single day of the year.