Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to fire stations typically in sparsely populated rural areas, whereas in urban areas firefighters tend to be on regular salaries. The purpose of the regulations is to make sure we do not have to rely on good-will decisions with quite a high threshold and no guarantee that firefighters on strike, who would normally be at the fire station and particularly in busy urban stations, would necessarily be there. If the house of anyone here or of any of their constituents were on fire and it was a strike day, they would want to know that their house would not burn down. We are trying with the regulations to strike a reasonable balance between the right of firefighters to go on strike and the right of the public not to suffer serious damage and threat to life. By the way, many other European countries, such as Portugal, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands and others, do strike that balance in a variety of different sectors—I am not talking just about fire—and have legislation that is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights and strikes precisely that reasonable, proportionate balance: that is what we are seeking to do here.

Just to return to the points that I was making, I have talked a little bit about control rooms, and I was just explaining, before taking the intervention, that decisions on the number of staff required to fulfil those control room functions will be for individual fire and rescue authorities to take on a bespoke, case by case basis. The reason for that is that the way that different fire and rescue authorities and fire and rescue services organise their control rooms differs, and it is quite difficult to have a single national level that would be appropriate for all of them.

When it comes to the emergency response element, we decided to set the minimum service level on a national basis across England—because these regulations apply to England; we will consider Wales and Scotland subsequently. It will be set at 73% of appliances. Just to be precise, when I say “appliances”, I mean fire engines and other fire and rescue service vehicles, so that is 73% of the level of those that would be available if the strike action were not taking place. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine the number of staff required to safely crew and oversee those appliances.

The decision to set this aspect of the minimum service level at 73% was based on detailed modelling, which is summarised in our consultation response. The modelling calculates the proportion of days over the past five years on which demand would have exceeded the number of appliances required to meet an MSL. The model identified 73% as the threshold at which every fire and rescue service would have had enough appliances to meet emergency demand—I stress “emergency demand”—on more than 97% of the days in that five-year period. In the interests of public safety, we therefore consider 73% to be the most appropriate point at which to set this aspect of the minimum service level.

Many fire and rescue services also host national resilience assets, which form an important part of any response to major and significant incidents, such as a major building collapse or wildfire. I consider it of the utmost importance that fire and rescue services can maintain those capabilities and keep the public safe. That is why the minimum service level for the national resilience assets is set so that they are also capable of being deployed, as if the strikes were not taking place, in response to emergency demand.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In this very detailed study that the Minister is talking about, how many incidents did they identify where this had actually been a problem?

[Chris Philp]

Well, it is set out in the consultation response. But, if the right hon. Gentleman is asking about how many strikes there have been—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Well, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should restate his question; I was not quite following it.

[John Spellar]

In the course of industrial action, how many incidents have there been where there had been a serious impact as a result of the strike?

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the past—about 10 years ago and, again, about 10 years before that—very considerable military assets were deployed in order to provide cover when there was a large-scale fire strike.

[Chris Philp]

I will in just a moment. It is worth saying that the assets that are possessed by the military today are not the same; their number of firefighting appliances is lower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So, whereas—

[John Spellar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will happily give way again in a minute, if the right hon. Gentleman wants, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but the point is that the military assets available 10 or 20 years ago, such as the green goddess fire engines, for example, are not available today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a characteristically excellent intervention. First, I do, of course, echo and share the tribute that she paid to the brave firefighters up and down the country, who put themselves in the line of danger every day to keep the rest of us safe. I think the whole Committee, on both sides, would echo that sentiment.

The examples that my hon. Friend gave about loss of life during previous fire strikes eloquently and powerfully answer the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Warley. They illustrate that, even when we had far more extensive military firefighting assets available—which we do not any more—none the less, life was still lost. What we are talking about here is ensuring that life and property—because both are important—are protected, even when a strike takes place.

The Committee knows this, but, just for clarity, we are not proposing, of course, to ban strikes. That is not what is being proposed here. We are simply setting out, in this area, as in others, a minimum level of cover that must be provided, even during a strike, to make sure that the public are kept safe and to avoid the tragic fatalities that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover just set out to the Committee a moment ago.

[John Spellar]

Can I just point out that there is a great difference between “during” and “as a consequence of”? In other words, there is a difference between a death during a strike and as a consequence of that action.

[Chris Philp]

Well, it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover can set out further particulars of the incidents that she referred to, but it would seem to me to be deeply concerning when a reduction in strike cover occurs and fatalities follow; that is something that should properly concern all of us. When it comes to something as serious as fire, where life and property are at risk, I think it is proper that Parliament ensures that we have done everything we can to make sure that the public are kept safe, even during strike action. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty were we not to do so.

Just to complete the point that I was making a moment ago about the 73% level and the assets relating to national resilience, as with other provisions in the regulations, fire and rescue authorities will consult with trade unions and determine the number of staff required to meet the minimum service level should strike action occur. Of course, I hope that the Fire Brigades Union and other unions engage constructively with that process when the time comes.

The third and final element of the minimum service level is to provide cover for urgent fire safety issues. The regulations set out that fire and rescue services will be expected to have staff available to rectify any emerging issues that pose an imminent risk to life and would normally require a same-day response. That might be, for example, where a significant fire safety issue is uncovered in a block of residential flats that necessitates same-day attention.

Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine individually how much cover will be required for that purpose. We think that that is likely to be minimal because we accept that it is reasonable that routine fire safety work, routine inspections and routine visits do not happen if there is a strike. Those are not essential activities; they are not essential for public safety—apart from in the emergency situation that I just described—so we accept and understand that those activities would not happen on the day of a strike.

Draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.

It is an honour to serve before you, Dame Angela.

The draft order amends the Police Act 1997 to require all unspent convictions and cautions to be disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal records certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. The DBS issues three types of criminal records certificate: a basic certificate, which is available for any role, and two higher level certificates, standard and enhanced, which are available for roles that require a higher level of public trust and/or close working with children or vulnerable adults. More criminal history information is disclosed on standard and enhanced checks than on the basic, in proportion to the sensitivity of the roles to which they relate.

The legislation that governs disclosure on basic certificates is different from that which determines what is disclosed on standard and enhanced. Disclosure on a basic certificate is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which sets out the periods of time after which convictions and cautions become spent; once spent, they are not disclosed on a basic DBS certificate. Disclosure on standard or enhanced certificates is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and section 113A of the Police Act 1997, which together allow an employer recruiting for more sensitive roles to see a person’s fuller criminal history.

The filtering rules that govern disclosure on standard and enhanced certificates define particular criminal records as a “relevant matter” that must be disclosed. The definition of relevant matter includes the seriousness of the offence, whether there was a custodial sentence and the length of time since the date of conviction or caution. The intention is that the convictions covered by the definition of relevant matter should include the unspent convictions disclosed on a basic check in addition to the more serious spent convictions that are relevant to the more sensitive roles. However, the filtering rules do not currently include explicit reference to whether a conviction or caution is spent. That has created an anomaly whereby, in certain very limited circumstances, an unspent conviction that would be disclosed on a basic certificate would not be disclosed on a standard or enhanced certificate.

An example may assist the Committee. The most straightforward example involves youth conditional cautions, which remain unspent for three months or until the condition is met, if earlier. If someone applies for a basic DBS check during that three-month window, the youth conditional caution will be disclosed. However, there is no provision for youth conditional cautions to be automatically disclosed on a standard or enhanced check, even during the three-month window in which they remain unspent. That might play out as follows. Let us say that a 17-year-old receives a youth conditional caution for common assault. Two months later, they apply to volunteer in a nursery and are required to undertake an enhanced DBS check. There is no provision for their youth conditional caution to be automatically disclosed on the enhanced check, so it comes back clean. To earn some more money alongside their volunteering, the 17-year-old also applies for a job in a supermarket, for which they are asked for the basic DBS check. The basic check discloses the youth conditional caution, because it is not yet spent. The supermarket thus ends up with access to more information than the nursery.

In that situation, the anomaly in disclosure is temporary, as a youth conditional caution will be unspent for a maximum of three months. Once that time is up, the youth conditional caution would not automatically be disclosed on any DBS check. However, the draft order will remove the anomaly altogether, and in cases such as this 17-year-old’s, ensure that the youth conditional caution would automatically be disclosed on any type of DBS check for the three months that it remains unspent. The order amends the filtering rules so that the unspent convictions and cautions are included in the definition of relevant matter and are therefore always disclosed on standard as well as enhanced certificates.

In conclusion, the disclosure and barring regime is based on the principles that those making employment decisions for the most risky jobs have access to—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I have been dealing with quite a bit of casework on this issue, and it seems to me that convictions incurred at an early age, particularly during teenage years, seem to debar people from jobs way into their 20s and 30s. The Minister referred to working in a nursery. We have a chronic shortage of workers in the care sector, yet mistakes people made when they were younger are counted against them, even though the principle of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to accept that most people can turn their lives around, and its aim is to enable them to do so.

People say, “Oh, the offence is one that the employer will disregard,” but employers do not do that. If they get back a form saying that there is something in a person’s record, they stop looking at the application. Then they come to us saying that they have to bring in people from abroad because they cannot get workers in this country. Is the Department looking at this aspect as well?

[Miss Dines]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an important part of our criminal justice system and our democracy is that people have the right to turn their lives around and become rehabilitated. That is why offences by younger members of our society often have shorter rehabilitation periods. It is right that there is a period after which a conviction, caution or court adjudication and sentence becomes spent, but it is important to strike a balance, and the Government feel that the current balance is the right one. Of course, this is precisely the sort of matter that we should always keep under review, and I am sure that the Ministry of Justice will continue to look at it from time to time. It would also be a very good subject for a debate, which the right hon. Gentleman might want to apply for.

[John Spellar]

I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. May I send her details of two recent cases I am dealing with, so she can consider whether the public purpose—the thoroughly understandable and correct purpose—of the legislation is being served, or whether we are preventing people from turning their lives around? One case involves not even a caution, but a notification by someone working as a prison officer that “the dog sat down” over drugs; no drugs were ever found on her, yet this notification is coming up in enhanced disclosures. There is no evidential proof, there was no court case; it is merely the—possibly prejudiced—view of one individual.

[Miss Dines]

That is a really important point. Although these matters may come up on a check, it does not necessarily bar the individual from working; it is a matter for the employer. None the less, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and sometimes employers can be too zealous in considering someone’s history. I welcome employers taking a balanced, long-term view, because we know that people with a criminal record incurred at an early age often turn their life around—and thank goodness they do. There has to be scope in any system for people who have made mistakes to recover from them.

I shall be grateful to see the two cases the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Ministry of Justice will be looking at this system. The barring system is in my portfolio, but there are wider criminal justice issues as well. Change is sometimes necessary, and it is led by Members of Parliament, so I look forward to seeing those examples.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

We have allocated £125 million across England and Wales through the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund, including £550,000 to invest in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. She works very hard on this issue. Work and engagement are ongoing with schools in the Chelmsford area, including the delivery of awareness sessions on healthy relationships and consent, and work with 15 and 16-year-olds who attend Chelmsford City football club.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T7. When will the Home Secretary finally accept, rather than waffle about new laws, that the Home Office is a complete mess? Quite apart from the asylum shambles, people renewing their visas are waiting months or years. Then, they have to wait again to get their biometric residence permit card, if they get printed. Far too many people have lost holidays because of waits for passports. When will she get a grip of her Department?

[Suella Braverman]

I strongly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion, surprisingly. On crime, we have seen a 20% fall in violent crime and neighbourhood crime and a 30% fall in domestic burglary since 2019. We see record numbers of police officers on our streets—something that everyone on the Opposition Benches voted against. When it comes to migration, I am incredibly proud of what this Government have achieved so far: the groundbreaking agreement with Rwanda, which is compassionate, pragmatic and lawful; and a plan to go further and deal with the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to those individuals who have served our country. I think it is important that the hon. Gentleman knows and the House is aware of the fact that I am currently working with the Secretary of State for Defence on these very cases; we are both looking at this. There will be future announcements coming forward. However, I am well aware of these individual cases—how these individuals have been treated, and the cases and the representations they are making right now—and, quite frankly, we want to correct this.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Windrush announcement, but the Windrush scandal was just the most extreme example of the indifference and rank incompetence endemic in today’s Home Office. Delays and charges are escalating, documents are not returned and often lost, and correspondence takes forever—whether to claimants or, indeed, to their Members of Parliament. Rather than make repetitious speeches about how tough they are going to be, why do Ministers not address the public’s priorities, as the Home Secretary has said, roll up their sleeves and get a grip of this dysfunctional Department?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He mentioned Windrush and the Department’s inefficiencies of the past, and there are a couple of points that I want to make. Windrush was a stain—let us face it—on the Department and the Government, and we are now working through that; we want to right the wrongs. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Do not forget that Wendy Williams’s report basically pointed to the ignorance and thoughtlessness about race and the history of the Windrush generation in the Department, but he refers to something much wider—he has raised this point with me numerous times—which is that we must not treat people like cases. That is a fundamental change that I am trying to bring to the Department. It is taking time, and there is no quick fix. I give him every single assurance that I will continue to work night and day to change our systems and make sure we put people first.

DRAFT REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1974 (EXCEPTIONS) ORDER 1975 (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2020 DRAFT POLICE ACT 1997 (CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: RELEVANT MATTERS) (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2020

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 General Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I suspect that you are the first of the 2015 intake to serve on the Panel of Chairs—that is a real and well-deserved privilege.

The orders, which were laid before Parliament on 9 July, are two very technical but important because they relate to the requirements for a person to self-disclose criminal records when applying for roles that are eligible for standard and enhanced criminal records checks, and to the rules for disclosure of criminal convictions and cautions on a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. As criminal record disclosure is a devolved matter, the orders apply only to England and Wales.

As hon. Members may be aware, in January 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of P, G and W. Overall, the Court found that a rules-based disclosure regime for criminal record certificates is justifiable and in accordance with the law. However, that judgment also determined that certain aspects of the current disclosure rules are incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights—namely, the right to a private life.

There were two areas of concern. First, the multiple conviction rule, under which all convictions, regardless of their nature, are disclosed when an individual has more than one, was found to be unnecessary and disproportionate in terms of indicating a propensity to offend. Secondly, the disclosure of out-of-court disposals administered to young offenders was found to be “an error of principle”, given the instructive purpose of the disposals, so the Court found against the automatic disclosure of youth reprimands and warnings.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Surely both propositions are absolutely self-evident. Why did we drag it all the way through the Court of Appeal and up to the Supreme Court—wasting years carrying on with it—when the Court actually applied a common-sense approach on both counts and said, “This is wrong”? Why could Ministers and civil servants not have done that years ago, rather than taking it all the way through that elongated process?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am so pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He has a particular interest in this matter, and I answer many of his parliamentary questions on it, so I know that it is an area in which he is an expert and to which he is very committed.

Although I do not want to go into the details of all the cases that were joined together, the reason that the Government took those cases to the Supreme Court was that there were many important principles of law to be tested. All along, we have reviewed those rules and done as we thought right. We cannot hide from the fact that the reason that the Disclosure and Barring Service regime and its predecessor were set up in the first place was to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is right that the Supreme Court was asked to look at the regime as a whole. It found that the regime was satisfactory and within the bounds of article 8 and other measures within the convention, but it drew two points to our attention. We have gone into great detail to ensure that we can bring about a system to enact the observations in the ruling by the Supreme Court, but to do so in a way that keeps the purpose of the regime in place.

The orders before the Committee will not change the purpose of the disclosure regime. The disclosure rules will continue to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected from dangerous offenders. However, the Supreme Court judgment made it clear that these two areas of concern are disproportionate as currently framed, so the orders will ensure that there is a balance between the safeguarding aims and supporting people who have offended in the past to move into employment and move on with their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank the Minister not only for writing to me, but for an informal briefing on the subject under discussion today. The changes are welcome, but long overdue. I have just delved into my files and I have a letter from the Ministry of Justice, from the then Minister, dated 20 April 2013:

“I am writing further to Andrew Lansley’s”—

remember him?—

“response to your Business Question on 18 April, asking for an early debate to discuss the impact of including cautions and minor convictions in disclosures issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service.”

That was in response to a

“recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R.”

This has been going on and on.

The changes today are welcome, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, but they still do not go far enough. It is still the case that, if people commit slightly more serious offences in their teen years, that dogs them all through their life. Indeed, some of the Supreme Court cases demonstrate that. These anomalies and problems will emerge, and I would hope, without too much expectation, that the Department might respond much more quickly than it has. The situation has gone on far too long.

It has become clear in the exchanges we have had that the issue is not even one that divides the parties, uniting those on the right of the Conservative party and the left of the Labour party. That is not, by the way, unique to the United Kingdom. In the United States, right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats have united in working together to introduce schemes for the rehabilitation of offenders, recognising a major social problem and an economic issue.

It is only the Department, and the stubbornness of officials, that have held things back. I have had agreement in the past between the Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary. The trouble was they got moved, and we had to start all over again. At the same time, the matter was dragged back by the officials, who would not move.

That is not unprecedented, by the way, in dealing with such issues. It took something like 10 or 15 years to get changes to wheel clamping, which had been abolished in Scotland by one legal decision. Yet again, after going all the way through the Home Office, the issue finally got transferred to the Department for Transport and we managed to get the changes and prevent wheel clamping on private land.

We cannot afford to behave like that, because the issue is extremely important. Everyone accepts that an essential condition for rehabilitation, which I think we all accept is desirable, just and necessary, enabling offenders to play their part in a law-abiding society, is to have a job and a stable relationship—the second of which is often dependent on the first—as well as being able to move into that job fairly rapidly.

I was interested in the intervention by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, and I pay tribute to the incredible work done by the company that he is associated with, precisely in recognising that. I only wish that more employers would follow through in the same way. He made an important point and asked that employers should look at the person.

Unfortunately, that is where I think the Minister was slightly naive. All that many employers look at is whether the boxes are ticked. Is the age box ticked? If someone is over a certain age, employers do not even look at them. There is a new way of doing that: employers ask for qualifications. For jobs where there is no reason to want A-levels, they want them. Alternatively, they require a degree-level person for a job. What does that say? It says that older people need not apply, because we look at the increase in the number of people taking A-levels and degrees, and we will see that there is a very definite age bias, so again they are excluded.

As for people with a disability, regardless of whether or not that disability prevents them from doing the job, too many employers—including some in the public sector, for all their pretensions—will not look at the person and think, “They can’t take this particular exam; they can’t do the job.” I once had a case of a constituent who had been doing a civil service job on a temporary basis for about four years. Their union reps tried everything to get them the job, but no, because the civil service rules said that they first had to take an exam, but because of their disability, which was a mental disability, they could not do that, but they had worked out a coping mechanism.

This behaviour is immoral, unjust and incredibly economically inefficient. However, there is another factor coming in. For quite a while now, we have had the issue that for too many employers the easy option has been not to look at the person but just to say, “Well, they have got some conviction.” They will then pick up the phone to the agency, which will pick up the phone to Warsaw, and all they will do is just import labour to do the work. Now, with the rapid increase in unemployment—we are already seeing that feeding through into reducing wage rates, indicating a surplus of supply over demand—we will be seeing the same thing, with employers taking the easy route. If somebody cannot tick the box, the employer does not even look at them. I think we will have to return to this issue, although this measure actually enables us to make decent progress.

I take issue with the Minister’s point about timeliness. The Lammy report, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham himself referred to very modestly, was a seminal report produced at the request of the then Conservative Prime Minister in 2017. The Minister referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 2019. We are now in September 2020. Why has it taken the Department so long, given that they knew all the issues that were involved, because they had been dealt with by the Court of Appeal? All that was being asked for was some final validation by the Supreme Court.

I return to the issue I raised. Given the details of the cases involved, why did the Home Office not move? I have to say that I find it truly extraordinary, when we have a lot of complaints about judges trying to make law rather than interpreting the law and adjudicating on it. Actually, we seem to have abdicated that responsibility, leaving it to judges to make the law. I had thought that it was the job of Parliament, Ministers and the civil service to identify problems and see whether they can be resolved within existing law, and then—if the law needs changing—to bring that change to Parliament. Why abdicate that to judges?

Let us look at one or two of the cases that were part of the Supreme Court’s judgment. P received a caution on 26 July 1999 for the theft of a sandwich from a shop. Three months later, on 1 November 1999, she was convicted at Oxford magistrates court of the theft of a book worth 99p and failing to surrender to the bail granted to her after arrest for that offence. She received a conditional discharge for both offences. At the time of the offences, she was 28, homeless and suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia, which is now under control. She has now qualified as a teaching assistant and has committed no further offences, but she has been unable to find employment. That is a scandal. Why would the Home Office not respond to that and say, “This cannot be and this should not be”?

W was convicted by Dewsbury magistrates court on 26 November 1982 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. At the time of the offence, he was 16 and the assault occurred in the course of a fight between a number of boys on their way home from school. He received a conditional discharge and has not offended since. He is now 47 and has difficulty obtaining a teaching job.

In 1996, Lorraine Gallagher was convicted at Londonderry magistrates court of one count of driving without wearing a seatbelt and three counts of carrying a child under 14 years old without a seatbelt, and there was a subsequent case in 1998. She has no other convictions. She qualified as a social carer and was admitted to the Northern Ireland Social Care Council register, and then she was rejected for employment as a result of failing the test. There are many other cases—I am sure many Members of Parliament have had them.

Frankly, it is scandalous that this issue has not been dealt with up to now. I doubt that, had I not had the luck of getting a question to the Prime Minister three weeks in a row—no, I did not tip the winner of the St Leger—it would even have got here by now. Why was the Prime Minister, certainly on the second occasion, not able to trump me and say, “This has all been sorted out”? This has been a saga of dither and delay.

A further problem is that the system finds it very difficult to cope with so many cases. Anybody who has moved from one conurbation to another—I get people who have moved from London to the midlands—have to get DBS checks from two police forces, and the record of the Metropolitan police has not been glowing in that regard. Month after month goes by, and those people are not able to get into employment. They are denied the ability to provide for themselves. That is partly to do with the efficiency of those forces, and partly about why these things cannot be done in parallel, rather than in series. It is also because we are overloading the system with so many unnecessary cases.

The Security Industry Authority is another one that has considerable problems. Those who remember the first police and crime commissioner elections know that those who had very minor convictions or cautions in their teenage years—they were often in their 50s or 60s —were denied the right to run as police and crime commissioners even if they were major figures in their local societies. This mindset at the Home Office must change.

I think, therefore, that colleagues on both sides of the House need to consider, as we approach Brexit and this country needs to be firing on four, not two, cylinders, whether we can afford this dithering, delay and obstruction that goes on regularly in so many Departments. Is it not holding back our country, as well as individuals? There is a real economic price to pay, quite apart from the social justice case. If we keep people in enforced unemployment or working in jobs that are below their capability and potential, that is not just bad for them but significantly bad for the country. Therefore, there needs to be a reflection particularly about the Home Office but also about the civil service generally.

We have had too many cases of this in the Home Office. We had the Windrush scandal, in which year after year, decent, hard-working citizens were deprived of their rights, treated with contempt, pushed around and treated scandalously. Even after it was exposed, very few of them received compensation—although, I do not know what the appropriate compensation would be for having their lives ruined. Some have already died, including one who used to work in the House of Commons, yet they rejected her claim. We have more and more delay and obstruction. I do not know how many people are still stuck, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham might.

[Mr Lammy]

Five thousand.

[John Spellar]

Five thousand people are still stuck in the system, which will not give way. Frankly, it is that indifference—that contempt for ordinary people—that, bluntly, in previous eras of the civil service, led to the Irish and Bengal famines. This is a welcome change. It needs to go further, but there also needs to be a root-and-branch change in Government.

[Victoria Atkins]

We were getting on so well! Hon. Members in other parts of the Palace may be heatedly debating certain issues, but I was hoping, from the constructive speech of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, that we could find agreement. Indeed, I acknowledge that he kindly indicated that the orders will not be subject to a vote, for which I thank him.

I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work on the Lammy review, on which he continues to keep a laser-like focus. Only recently, in answer to an urgent question, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), updated the Chamber that, of the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendations, 16 have been completed, two have been rejected and 17 are in progress. I very much hope that he considers this measure to be one of the recommendations in progress that we hope to be finalised by the end of the year.

The hon. Member for Warley—

[John Spellar]

Right hon. Gentleman.

[Victoria Atkins]

Forgive me. The right hon. Gentleman took a slightly different approach in his advocacy, but we acknowledge the passion that he brings to the subject. I merely confirm and reassure him that his PMQs will have been considered carefully by the Prime Minister, and that the Government will of course continue to consider carefully the Supreme Court ruling. It is precisely because we have been careful to ensure that we are following the guidance in that ruling that we have arrived at these orders.

I will clarify a couple of points in relation to the case that was argued, because the right hon. Member for Warley put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that common sense would have dictated that the Government change the policy before the Supreme Court ruling on the four cases that were joined. In fact, in the case of P, her convictions stood to be disclosed under the multiple conviction rule. W wanted to teach English, but as actual bodily harm is on the specified offences list, it will always be disclosed, and indeed, that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case of Gallagher was again a case of the multiple conviction rule, and will be corrected by virtue of these orders.

The fourth case, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, was that of G, who received two reprimands aged 13 for sexually assaulting two younger boys, both aged nine. G claimed that the acts were consensual. He would have had the reprimand disclosed under the serious offences rule. The Supreme Court was content with that course of action. I hope that shows that, although one may have an instinct as to how certain rules should be applied, the Government must none the less take each case and be clear as to the consequences, intended and unintended, of changing the safeguarding regime.

[John Spellar]

If we take the case of W, the Supreme Court would have said, “As we understand the law, as the law is, this is what you should do.” The Minister said that the Supreme Court gave approval for the way the Government acted in the case of W. It then falls back to the Minister to justify how a conditional discharge that a 16-year-old received after a fight between a number of boys on their way home from school in 1982, since when he has not offended, should blight his life in his 40s. That is not a job for the judge, who has to work on the basis of the law at that moment. Why did Ministers not take from that example that they should change the law?

Birmingham Attacks and Extinction Rebellion Protests

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Obviously the decisions to charge, prosecute and hand out whatever sentence may be appropriate are a matter for those who are not under my control, happily—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts—but I know that they all have in mind the fact that confidence in the criminal justice system comes from exactly what my hon. Friend says, which is that everybody, whether he be aristocrat or commoner, is treated equally.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on the Front Bench rightly commended the people of Birmingham for going calmly about their business today. Unfortunately, that might be happening because such violent incidents are far too common on our streets now, and quite frankly, this is the shocking legacy of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) during her time as Home Secretary. Her slash-and-burn approach to the police led to the loss of 2,300 police officers in the west midlands, as well as equally valuable police community support officers and civilian support staff. The inevitable outcome has been surging crime and antisocial behaviour, terrorised neighbourhoods and the criminals ruling the streets after dark. So will the Minister now not just talk the talk about the number of police, PCSOs and support staff, but provide the cash from central Government as well, and not just for one or two years?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman sought to ascribe blame elsewhere other than with the perpetrator of this awful crime. The basic premise of his attack is completely wrong. When I was deputy Mayor for policing in London dealing with a not dissimilar spike in knife crime, both in the capital and indeed across the country, it was at a time when police officer numbers were at an all-time high and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were spending money like water. The two are not connected. The causes of knife crime are complex and difficult. It behoves us all to take a serious non-political view and look at a 360° approach to tackling knife crime together.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, these measures will be reviewed and aligned with the other health measures being brought in. I emphasise again that it is important to look at this in its totality and in the round, alongside the desire of our country and Government to get the R value down, so that we can unlock and reopen society in many other ways.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Just now we had a junior Transport Minister, subbing for the Chancellor, wringing her hands about the aviation industry, but the Home Secretary has just thrown her, the industry and its workers under the bus, and at the same time put up a massive “Britain is closed” sign. At the very least, will she demand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he extends the furlough scheme to try to avert hundreds of thousands of workers being thrown on the dole in the next few weeks?

[Priti Patel]

First of all, I find the right hon. Gentleman’s tone somewhat objectionable. I have been incredibly supportive of the aviation industry. [Interruption.] I can hear sarcastic cries of “tough”. It is important to reflect the way in which the aviation industry is dynamic, innovative and huge to our economy.

[John Spellar]

You are shutting it down.

[Priti Patel]

I am not shutting it down—on the contrary. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, the Business Secretary and all colleagues across Government. I will restate to all Members of this House that these are cross-Government measures to protect the public health of our nation. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comment with regard to the furlough scheme and protecting jobs. Of course, we all want to protect jobs. This has been a tremendously difficult period economically. We will have major economic issues to confront as we come out of this dreadful situation. We are not on our own. The international economy is in exactly the same space. It is right that we work collectively, rather than in an aggressive and hostile way, to find the right solutions for the people of this country, to protect not only their health but their long-term jobs and livelihoods.

Crime (West Sandwell)

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

A few weeks ago, I stood in this Chamber and stated very clearly that I would not allow the people of West Bromwich West to be abandoned again. That is why I am here today: to fight for them and keep our communities safe. I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that it is that sense of community—that coming together of people, and the genuine care and compassion we show each other—that makes all our communities great. However, the great communities that make up my constituency are under attack.

My constituents are decent, hard-working and caring people, and one of the benefits of having such a great community is that we are blessed with some fantastic community groups, such as the WMA community fitness centre in Tipton, which works to keep young people off the streets and prevent them from falling into crime, through a variety of martial arts, fitness work and pastoral care.

However, the most recent figures, from December 2019, highlight the battle that we are facing in West Sandwell more widely. We have seen a sharp rise in anti-social behaviour; in burglary; in vehicle, violent and sexual crime; in drug-related crime; in bike thefts; and in muggings. With just under 100,000 people in my constituency, the 2019 figures are, quite frankly, shocking: 2,990 violent and sexual crimes, 1,089 vehicle-related crimes, over 1,000 cases of anti-social behaviour, 850 cases of burglary, and 790 cases of criminal damage and arson.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned burglary, but is he also seeing, as we are seeing in Warley, aggravated burglary, where people are smashing into homes even when residents are in, terrifying and intimidating them, and causing huge fear in the neighbourhood?

[Shaun Bailey]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, having also seen that in my constituency casework. I am sure it is something he sees almost daily in his mailbag.

Since the Labour police and crime commissioner for the west midlands took office in August 2014, we have seen month-on-month increases in violent crime—we have seen violent crime rise by 175%. For example, in August 2014 there were 3,148 violent crimes reported in the west midlands area, and in December 2019 that figure had risen to over 8,500 incidents, in a single month. Those are astonishing and shocking figures, and they cannot be ignored.

Nobody—and I mean nobody—should feel unsafe in their home or when walking to the shops, or feel concern for their children walking to school, or have concerns about their car being vandalised at night, or question whether it is safe to leave their windows open while they sleep. However, that is exactly what I am hearing on the ground, and the statistics very much reflect those concerns. Those concerns are a daily occurrence for many constituents who just want to get on with their lives.

My constituents are coming to me, as their voice in Westminster, and pleading with me to do something about the rising levels of crime in West Bromwich West and west Sandwell. I have seen at first hand the pain and anguish that these criminals are bringing to an otherwise cohesive, close-knit, welcoming and warm community. This is not simply about reducing numbers on a spreadsheet or grabbing a headline; the consequences of the current situation are very real and damage the livelihoods of good and honest people.

I want to share a real-life example that one of my constituents has asked me to use today. Ellie lives in Wednesbury, in the north of my constituency. She moved to Wednesbury last May and is now nine months pregnant. She was the victim of a burglary at the end of last year, around seven months after she first moved in. The perpetrators broke into her partner’s van on 23 December, just two days before Christmas. They took over £1,000-worth of tools, and the damage to the van was so bad that it had to be written off. Ellie’s partner relies on the van and his tools for his livelihood; that is how he provides for his family.

Ellie has told me that she has experienced two other attempted break-ins since she moved to Wednesbury just last May, and her and her partner’s lives have had to revolve around checking the CCTV daily. I ask all Members to think about that for a second. Expecting parents should be thinking about baby names and decorating the baby’s room, deciding on the nappy changing rota and generally celebrating the new life that they will be welcoming into this world. Instead, Ellie and her partner are spending their time checking the CCTV system out of fear that somebody has been trying to break into their vehicle and their home. I will not allow this to go on. I am intervening today because I was sent here to fight for people like Ellie and her soon-to-be-born baby, whose voices have not been listened to for too long. As a result of the situation, tragically Ellie has told me that she does not feel that she can stay in Wednesbury once her baby is born, so she is moving away with her partner and their family.

If we want to revive communities such as Wednesbury, Tipton and Oldbury, we need to ensure that they are safe for people to live in so that families can settle there, feel safe there and want to contribute to our society. I know that this Government and the Minister are committed to tackling rising crime, wherever it rears its head. However, we need to remember that what we are talking about is not solely the responsibility of national Government. Shockingly, the response from our local Labour police and crime commissioner to these very real concerns has been to consider closing a further three police stations in west Sandwell—in Oldbury, a town that I share with the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), in Wednesbury, where Ellie lives, and in Tipton. How the conclusion was reached that that was the right decision, I am not entirely sure.

The response I have received when I have had a frank discussion about this issue is, “By closing the buildings we can put more officers on the street”. On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible proposition. However, it is certainly not an either/or, considering that the PCC has taken the decision to invest £33 million in the refurbishment of Lloyd House, the headquarters of West Midlands police. It is slightly baffling to me that the refurbishment of an office could be even a slightly more pressing matter than the safety of residents or boots on the street. It simply is not good enough for my residents and my communities. This refurbishment is an unnecessary waste of vital resources that should be pushed to the frontline. I invite the police and crime commissioner to Tipton, one of the most vulnerable communities in our area, where the police station has been threatened with closure, to tell the people there why their police station should close but the headquarters can be refurbished.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shaun Bailey]

I am afraid that I must make some progress.

I also ask the PCC to tell people in Wednesbury who have lost their desk service why an office refurbishment should be the priority. I thank my good friend Jay Singh-Sohal, the Conservative candidate for West Midlands police and crime commissioner, for his steadfast support and leadership in the campaign to keep Tipton police station open, as well as a review of provision in Wednesbury. Jay has proven that he is a strong friend of the communities in my constituency, and I look forward to working with him as we continue this fight.

I am fully aware that crime is changing, as is the way we react and deal with crimes.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shaun Bailey]

I really do need to make some progress.

I have been impressed by the efforts of police forces across the country to focus on cyber-crime, recruiting special police officers to deal with cyber-crime and tackling the new ways in which crime has developed, particularly in the west midlands. But I am sure that what our constituents want to see is community-based policing.

[John Spellar]

More coppers.

[Shaun Bailey]

It is as if the right hon. Gentleman can read my mind. Community-based policing means boots on the ground, just as he says from a sedentary position, but it also means buildings and a real estate strategy, as well as fostering community engagement—another core point.

How we manage the roles of police officers in our communities also needs to change. Police officers tell me that they do not just want to be the last response and final line of defence. In fact, they want to reclaim the position that they feel they have lost, of being at the core and centre of the community. That means encouraging and allowing police officers to get themselves out there, whether by sitting in their local café, going around their local shop, carrying on going into our local schools or, yes, simply walking up and down the high street on the beat. We need to allow police officers the freedom to come out from behind the desk and to be out there in the community. I have been encouraged by conversations that I have had recently with people from a range of forces, a range of police and crime commissioners and a range of chief constables. With the adoption of new technologies, and innovative ways of thinking and working, we can get back to this grassroots policing.

This is also about continuing and building on the amazing network of neighbourhood and street watch schemes. I pay tribute to these groups in my constituency, particularly the Tividale street watch group. I visited them two weeks ago and hope to be out on patrol with them soon. Those groups are stepping up and doing an amazing job by engaging with our award-winning neighbourhood policing teams in west Sandwell. It is fantastic to see the strides that they are making. But we need to ensure that the resource is there, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, they cannot be their own private police force. They should not have to be. These people are civilians—normal human beings. Why should they have to be acting like a private police force?

While my contribution today has focused more on the gritty and harsh reality of what my communities face on a day-to-day basis, I am optimistic about the future. I know that we can solve the issues I have highlighted—because, quite frankly, we have to. The 20,000 new recruits that we will see across the country are a welcome and vital addition to our community. The Government’s wider commitment to protecting our officers on the beat—

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shaun Bailey]

Yes, as the right hon. Gentleman has been so persistent.

[John Spellar]

Is it not true that that we have lost well over 2,000 officers and will get just over 1,000 back, whereas Surrey is getting an increase on its baseline? Were not the cuts by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Home Secretary absolutely devastating in the west midlands?

[Shaun Bailey]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but let us look at the reasons why those cuts were made. Quite frankly, it is all summed up by the individual he is backing to be the Mayor of the west midlands, who left the note to say there was no money left. I assure this House that we will be working to ensure that he does not do to the west midlands what he did to this country.

On the 20,000 new recruits, I have three asks for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I want her to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that they will use their influence to encourage PCCs to deploy those extra police officers in the areas that need them. I am sure we can all agree across this House that we need to be maximising where they are deployed. Although that is a decision for our local police forces, hopefully the Government can intervene on that. Secondly, I hope that she will reaffirm the Government’s commitment to community-based policing whereby we work with all our stakeholders to ensure that police are once again embedded at the heart of our communities. Finally, I hope that she will meet me and other stakeholders in west Sandwell to discuss how we can ensure that police forces have the tools and support they need to operate and to keep our communities safe.

As I said in my maiden speech, I was brought up to believe that we have a duty to speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves, and I wanted to ensure that Ellie, her unborn baby and the rest of my constituents were heard loud and clear by this Government. Our community is vulnerable. I hope that my constituents will see that I am keeping my promise to them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on securing this important debate and speaking with such passion about the impact of crime in his constituency. He set out very clearly the promise he made to his constituents on his election. I, for one, think he is very much delivering on that promise.

My hon. Friend eloquently set out the corrosive and devastating impact of crime. People have the right to feel safe when they visit their local high street, walk home, or go to sleep at night.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that keeping our streets safe is an absolute priority for this Government. We have taken swift action to tackle crime on multiple fronts, with clear priorities of addressing serious violence, homicide and neighbourhood crime. We are also investing heavily in policing, enabling the biggest increase in police funding in a decade and the largest recruitment drive in many more. The Prime Minister promised that, and like my hon. Friend, he is delivering on his promise.

While there is no shortcut to solving crime, this people’s Government have the commitment and resolve to see this through. We will maintain a relentless focus on cutting crime and addressing its root causes. We will see extra police officers on the streets and support law enforcement to deliver innovative approaches that keep them a step ahead of these fast-evolving criminal groups. We must protect the most vulnerable, invest in safeguarding and support those at greatest risk of becoming victims or offenders.

[John Spellar]

Can the Minister tell us when those police will be on the streets of the west midlands and how many there will be?

[Victoria Atkins]

The right hon. Gentleman is surpassing himself today—I am just about to move on to that, because it was the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. We have pledged to recruit an additional 20,000 officers, which we believe sends a clear message that we are committed to giving police the resources they need to tackle the scourge of crime. West Midlands police will receive up to £620.8 million in funding in 2020-21—an increase of up to £49.6 million on the previous year. To put that in context, it is an increase of 8.7%, which is the third highest in the country. This year alone, West Midlands police will benefit from 366 more police officers, but we make it clear that this is the first tranche in a three-year programme.

Forces have been given a generous funding settlement in order to provide for the associated costs alongside new officers, such as additional cars, estate equipment and uniforms, and give them what they need to tackle crime. How and where in each force those officers are deployed is a decision to be made by the local chief constable, but I note my hon. Friend’s encouragement for central Government to get involved. I suspect that he will be a very good advocate for his constituency, to ensure that it sees the benefit of those new officers and the extra funding. Fundamentally, this is about tackling crime. The uplift programme provides the opportunity to ensure that we have the officers that policing needs to respond to the increase in demand and to take a proactive response to tackling and preventing crime.

My hon. Friend asked about community and neighbourhood policing. Local policing fulfils two essential functions: responding to calls for service and preventing crime and harm. It is also the key vehicle for building legitimacy through community engagement and public confidence. The College of Policing published guidelines on modernising neighbourhood policing in March 2018. The Home Office contributed to the guidelines, which cover a variety of topics, including engaging communities, solving problems, targeting activity and promoting the right culture.

That is all good work, but we want to build on it, because two of the crime types that are at the heart of neighbourhood policing are, sadly, acquisitive crime and vehicle crime. The Government recognise the distress and disruption that acquisitive crimes can cause. Indeed, my hon. Friend set out clearly the experiences of his constituent Ellie and her partner, and the longer-term consequences for the family’s livelihood and wellbeing. Residential burglary is a particularly invasive crime that can have a lasting impact on its victims, and vehicle theft can also have a real impact, particularly on those who rely on their vans, scooters and other vehicles to earn a living.

We are committed to driving down those crimes and making our communities safer. One way in which we will achieve that is through our £25 million safer streets fund, which will support the communities who are disproportionately affected by acquisitive crime to implement crime-prevention initiatives such as improved street lighting and home security. The principle behind the fund is that policing cannot deliver this on their own. We need to engage neighbourhoods in the package of measures to have success in local areas. We are encouraging bids to the fund not only to be developed in partnership with local communities but to include community-focused elements—for example, building support and engagement in the proposed interventions, or direct funding for community groups to undertake prevention activities themselves.

We have made it clear that, although police and crime commissioners are the lead bidders, they are encouraged to work in partnership with a wide range of local organisations to ensure that local priorities are addressed and local communities are engaged. The application process for the fund is currently open, and I would encourage my hon. Friend to work with the police and crime commissioner, his local police force and community groups to develop and submit a bid or bids to the fund before its closing date of 20 March.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of serious violence. Again, we understand and recognise the terrible impact that serious violence has on local neighbourhoods and communities. Preventing and tackling serious violence is a matter for law enforcement—of course it is—but we also need to find long-term solutions to the problem and to tackle the root causes. We recognise the importance of effective partnership working across the wide range of professions that must work together to bear down on this problem.

To support this, we are introducing the serious violence Bill, which will create a new duty on a range of specified agencies—the police, local government, youth offending, health and probation—to work collaboratively, share data and information, and put in place plans to prevent and reduce serious violence within their local communities.

We invested £100 million in 2019-20, through the serious violence fund, for the 18 police force areas most affected by serious violence. Of this, £7.62 million was allocated to the West Midlands to pay for a surge in police operational activity. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary announced a further just under £5 million for the West Midlands, as a provisional allocation in an overall announcement of £41.5 million for police surge funding in the year 2020-21. West Midlands will provisionally be allocated this as one of the 18 force areas worst affected by serious violence.

A further £3.37 million has been invested in developing the West Midlands violence reduction unit. On 29 December 2019, the Home Secretary announced a further £35 million to continue funding these units. The West Midlands VRU has been allocated another £3.37 million for 2020-21 to continue to tackle the root causes of serious violence. Indeed, when I joined officers out and about in Birmingham a few months ago, I was very pleased to meet some of the people setting up that important unit in my hon. Friend’s local constabulary area.

My hon. Friend asked me the very difficult question—question 3—of whether I would meet him and his constituents in his constituency, and I would be delighted to do so. I would be delighted to visit him in his constituency so that I can see for myself the issues that he and his constituents are facing. I thank him very much for the opportunity to listen to and discuss the particular issues facing his constituency. I will of course continue to reflect on them in considering the Government’s approach in the future. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to raise these issues with continued passion and determination.

Finally, I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent Ellie and her partner all the very best with the happy arrival, I hope, of their cherished baby.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve the Disclosure and Barring Service.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)]

The Disclosure and Barring Service is a vital part of the safeguarding regime. The DBS issued more than 5 million certificates last year, which was more than the previous year. The Home Office, as the sponsoring Department, continues to oversee the DBS’s performance.

[John Spellar]

Does the Home Secretary not understand —I think he does, along with the Justice Secretary—that it is widely accepted across the House that the service is not fit for purpose, because it makes it far too difficult for those with a record to get back into work, which is bad not only for them but for their families and society? Can we have some urgent action to get back to trying to rehabilitate offenders by putting tight limits on disclosure, especially for cautions and minor offences in early years, and so let many of our citizens turn their lives around? Why does he not cut through the bureaucratic inertia in the Home Office and get a move on?

[Sajid Javid]

The House will be aware that there have problems with the service in recent years. As a result, a number of changes are being made and performance is up. In fact, a new chief executive is starting this week, I believe, so there is new management. On the actual policies it implements, the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Changes can be made and active discussions are taking place right now between me and the Justice Secretary.

Child Sexual Exploitation Victims: Criminal Records

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, once again, the Minister’s response is the same as the one that we get from the Home Office, which is that it is for the employer to decide, and frankly that is just not good enough. It shows a failure in the Home Office to recognise the fundamental flaws both in the policy and implementation of the disclosure and barring scheme. We must allow people, particularly victims of CSE, to rebuild their lives. Why will she not dump the dogma and sort out the faulty DBS before it blights even more lives?

[Victoria Atkins]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of campaigning on this matter, and he asked me about the system recently in Home Office questions. I remind him gently that the Supreme Court found that it was a coherent scheme of legislation. We are considering that judgment very carefully, because, of course, we must balance the rights of the individual against the rights of wider society in safeguarding the most vulnerable people in our communities.