Metropolitan Police: Operational Independence

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation. The Home Secretary and other politicians on both sides of the House are perfectly entitled to hold policing to account, but of course this Government, as the Prime Minister said, accept—indeed, embrace—the principle of operational independence.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

We all know that many people will be on the march on Saturday. The organisers and participants have told me that they will be participating in ceremonies of remembrance and that their march has been organised in such a way that it will not impact on that. The truth is that the Government are attempting to draw the police into taking political sides in a very contentious matter in the country. There are millions of people who want a ceasefire. We are on a dangerous slippery slope, because the operational independence of the police to protect the right of assembly —the basic English right of liberty—is being challenged by the Home Secretary. She is not fit to hold that post, is she?

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept that characterisation. I am sure all of us—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker; I have a bit of a cold this morning. We all accept the right to protest, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, long predates the European convention on human rights. There are limits to that right concerning public order, incitement to racial hatred and so on, and it is for the police to police those laws, but it is reasonable for politicians to hold them to account for doing that, as many politicians on both sides quite rightly do.

Police Uplift Programme

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Of course, I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss police funding in Lincolnshire as soon as possible. It is a topic I discuss with the excellent police and crime commissioner Marc Jones regularly. The current police funding formula has been around for quite a long time and needs refreshing. We intend to consult on the formula to start the process of getting it updated, so that areas such as Lincolnshire, which the police funding formula does not treat as generously as some other areas, can be addressed.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Of course we all thank police officers who work diligently within the rules, but I came to Parliament this week from Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby, where there is an urgent problem with antisocial behaviour. Two points were made to me. First, where are the police? We do not see them in the villages in our area. Secondly, the 20,000 police officers who were lost each had many years of service and they are being replaced by people who are new to the job. In the vacuum that was left during the years when the Government cut the police service, criminality and antisocial behaviour became rife. Of course, they then cut £1 billion from youth services and mental health services. The Government’s record is a disgrace. They left communities ill defended and we are now seeing the consequences.

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept that. I have read out twice now—I will not repeat them—the ONS figures in the crime survey for England and Wales showing reductions in crime since 2010. On antisocial behaviour, the Government agree that more needs to be done. That is why, just a week or two ago, the Prime Minister personally launched an antisocial behaviour action plan designed to rid our streets of the scourge of ASB. On police officers being visible, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) that we want visible police and we expect to see that with all the extra officers who have been recruited.

Antisocial Behaviour in Town Centres

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wish I had prepared my contribution as a response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because some of the outrageous statements he made were frankly unbelievable. Anyone would think that the Conservative party had not been in office for 13 years. Is it just me, or would anyone think there is an election around the corner? He hit back at the democratic processes in his constituency about who is elected. It is the people who elect their representatives. The MP does not select councillors—it is the people who do that. Criticism of the people in his own constituency might not go down well.

However, I seriously thank the hon. Member for bringing this timely debate on a massive subject, though it is shame he used it simply to try to attack the Labour party. That is extraordinary, to be honest. His closing remarks were along the lines of, “Thank you, Minister, for the wonderful robust approach that the Government have taken to antisocial behaviour on the high street.” If they are doing a great job, what is there to debate? There is either a problem that needs to be dealt with, or everything is okay. He cannot have it both ways, I am afraid.

The common denominator to the huge issues that I describe as high street anarchy is that the Conservative party in 2010 reduced the police by 20,000 officers.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. I was in Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby on Monday, where there is a serious antisocial problem. The policing is lacking because of the cuts that he just referred to. I do not think we should be demonising a whole generation of young people. The Tories cut £1 billion or more of funding for youth services, so there is no youth provision in the villages I represent—there are no youth clubs—and all sorts of other facilities simply closed down as a result of those cuts. Does he agree that the backdrop to this problem of antisocial behaviour is, first, inadequate policing because of poor funding and, secondly, cuts to services upon which so many people depend?

Machetes: Consultation

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend and fellow London MP asks a very good and pertinent question. The Metropolitan police currently takes between 350 and 400 knives off the streets of London every month using regular stop and search, so we should be clear that it is an important tactic that keeps our constituents and fellow citizens safe. Scan and search has enormous potential for covertly or discreetly scanning people as they walk down the street and detecting those who are carrying knives. I strongly encourage police forces up and down the country, not just the Metropolitan police, to adopt that kind of technology to ensure they identify more knives and take them off our streets.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

An hour and a half ago, we were able to identify and source online a machete for under £11 which could be delivered to my house tomorrow. That is totally unacceptable. My constituents do not want to hear any more words; they want action. The Minister talked about diversionary tactics for young people. The 23 villages I represent tell me the Government have abandoned them: no youth services anymore; very little access to mental health services for young people; and very often we do not see any community police officers in our villages. None of that is acceptable. The issue requires a holistic approach by the Government to tackle the sense of abandonment that so many people feel in our area, which is the breeding ground for so much violent crime.

[Chris Philp]

One of the reasons we are hiring extra officers—and why we are confident we will have record numbers when the figures are unveiled next week—is to ensure we have a visible police presence not just in our cities and towns, but in villages up and down the country as well. In terms of action on buying zombie knives, the seven-week consultation launched today, combined with the provisions in the Online Safety Bill, are designed to address that problem. It is important, as the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why the Government are acting.

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

A mature woman constituent who came to see me had been abused as a child by her father. The police simply did not address the matter for years and years until, through that struggle, we eventually managed to get a prosecution and the father ended up in jail. He is still there now. This is not simply a problem of the Met. What is the Home Secretary doing? Is it not reckless to hand over new police powers, such as stop and search, without suspicion of any crime being committed, to a racist, homophobic and misogynist police force? What guarantee can she give that those very police officers who are not acceptable will not use those powers to pursue their evil ways?

[Suella Braverman]

On improving standards, I have launched a review of the dismissals process. We wait for that to conclude, and on the back of that we will take action, legislative if necessary, to change the standards and the process by which chief constables and senior leaders in policing apply those standards in recruitment. It is important that we look at the evidence from that consultation, and we will be announcing measures in due course.

Public Order Bill

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer]

It is, and that is an important point. This is not a debate about opinions on abortion. Opinions about abortion are varied and differ hugely throughout the House. The 2022 Act already gives the police the power to

“place any condition on a public assembly (that is necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation)”.

That is far more targeted and proportionate. If Members do not feel those powers are sufficient, that is a conversation about altering public space protection orders, not imposing nationwide buffer zones.

Those who do not accept amendment (a) must be able to justify to both themselves and the public why they do not believe that private prayer is a fundamental human right in the United Kingdom. The Bill must absolutely not outlaw our fundamental human rights and I remain far from convinced that, unamended, it will not.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

May I first seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker? May I speak to the other amendments on the order paper?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Please speak only to the amendments that are before us today.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to be clear.

I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), although clearly the ability of people to go about their lawful business at work, including clinicians, administrative assistants and women going to have procedures, must be protected. I am not convinced that his amendment (a) would achieve an absence of harassment, so I will not support it and the House should not do so either.

I have some sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman made, however, because the whole Bill is an assault on British liberty. That is the central point, and I will illustrate it in several ways later in my speech. This is an extraordinary Bill. It will hand unprecedented, draconian powers to the repressive arms of the British state, but we have been given only three hours to discuss it. The debate on protecting people going for abortions could take three hours in itself, but we are faced with a series of amendments that were debated in the Lords over days. We have been given three hours, and that is outrageous. Why have the Government provided so little time to discuss these matters, some of which go back a thousand years in English history?

Lords amendment 6 deals with stop and search without suspicion. The police will be granted the power to intercept people who are not even suspected of committing a crime. That is an extraordinary power after more than 1,000 years of the struggle by the British people for a state that protects our liberty. Several of those who spoke in the debate in the other place said that the only comparison they could think of was in the laws that were passed against terrorism. Protesting about injustice is not terrorism, and to conflate the two is a mistake. I have not heard the Government make the case for that, and I will be interested to hear what they have to say. The police have said that they do not want these powers, and previous members of the judiciary in the Lords said that they were concerned about how the Bill could be interpreted.

The Bill as it stands will lead to a further breakdown in confidence between the police and other parts of the state on the one hand, and communities on the other. One example is the Sarah Everard case, where police moved in to prevent what was effectively peaceful and justified protest. That led to a major breakdown in confidence in the Met, although that was already in process because it was a serving police officer who had committed the crime. The police used the covid rules that were then in place, the appropriateness of which had been debated in the House.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I support him in his cause this afternoon, but the arrests in the Sarah Everard case were made because, shamefully, this House had banned the right to protest.

[Jon Trickett]

That is the point I was just making, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating it.

The police used the covid rules, which had been passed by the House, possibly regrettably. But under this Bill, the police will need no excuse whatever, because the law will allow them to arrest people even if there is no suspicion of any kind. It is quite extraordinary to see a clause in a Bill brought before this British House of Commons proposing that people can be intercepted by the police on no suspicion whatsoever.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Is it not the case that this Bill removes from the police the right to use something that we expect from them: discretion? It removes the ability to use their discretion and be proportionate. This Bill applies a disproportionate action and forces the police to take that disproportionate action.

[Jon Trickett]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is right that the British state claimed historically to be the bastion of our liberty, but today it is proposed that it become an engine of our suppression. An authoritarian state is being created here, and it is not acceptable.

When I said earlier that these rights go back centuries, I was not exaggerating. The right to freedom of association—for people to meet with whoever they choose, on the streets or anywhere else—is part of the very structure of our society. The rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly were built into our constitution for generations and centuries. They will all be fundamentally disrupted by this piece of legislation.

Habeas corpus, the right of individuals not to be intervened on by the state or its apparatuses without good reason, goes back centuries. Protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the state was incorporated in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. The Bill of Rights 1689 went through this House of Commons, and now the House of Commons is being asked to surrender at least part of the principle of habeas corpus, and on no suspicion whatsoever. I add that point one more time, because it is extraordinary that that is what is being said.

It may be said, “Well, in the light of what’s happening in the country, with the protest movements and so on, we need new powers.” Just a minute, though—will the Minister in responding perhaps tell us why a breach of the King’s peace, or the Riot Act 1714, or other items of legislation which have gone through this House and have protected our liberties over the centuries, might not be appropriately used? A breach of the peace is an act of common law going back before the year 1000, to King Alfred—that is how deep the attachment to liberty is in our country, yet it is about to be broken.

The Justices of the Peace Act 1361, preventing riotous and barbaric behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King, also went through this Parliament. Why is it suddenly necessary now, after more than 1,000 years of our history, to empower the state to operate in these ways? We have many other Acts; the Riot Act was read on the steps of the town hall, I think, in my home city of Leeds, against the gas workers who were on strike in the 19th century. In Featherstone in my constituency, the Riot Act was read and people were killed. All they were doing was striking to protect their wages and incomes. How can it be that there is no legislation in place that might deal with the kind of actions we can envisage taking place? Why is it that suddenly, in this century, we are about to abandon 1,000 years of our history? I will come to an explanation in a moment.

I have spoken to Lords amendment 6, but I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 1 and the attempt to define what the Government mean by “serious disruption”. The amendment is now being replaced by the Home Secretary, who is proposing amendment (a) in lieu. The amendment in lieu is quite astonishing. It suggests that anybody may be arrested if they have taken action that might, in more than a minor degree, affect work or supply of goods and services. Subsection (2)(b) of the Home Secretary’s amendment in lieu refers to the following activities: the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, communication, places of worship, transport, education and health. It so happens that those are the areas where there is industrial action—where people are taking action to protect their living standards, a right they have had for more than a century.

Why is the list that has been provided to this House in this amendment proposing those particular areas of action? How can minor disruption to services now be regarded as a criminal offence? This will provoke a breakdown in trust between the police force, the state itself and people taking action. I represent a mining community. I went there just over 27 years ago, and during the strike—[Interruption.] Are you trying to say something, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I was just trying to communicate that at some point we need to be aware that there are quite a few speakers. That is all.

[Jon Trickett]

I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am about to finish on this point.

The definition that the Lords tried to introduce was not perfect but it was far better than the amendment before us. We have a failing political and economic system, and consent has broken down across wide parts of the country. There are two ways of moving forward: either we try to produce a just and more equal society or we move from consent to repression. That is where this Government are taking us, and it is a seriously bad step. This legislation, and certainly the amendments, ought not to go through.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Safe Streets for All

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

In a striking opening comment in the Queen’s Speech debates, the Prime Minister remarked that genius can be found everywhere in our country—of course, you and I know that that is especially true in God’s own country, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we will draw a veil over that. He also said that opportunity is lacking throughout the country. We arrive, then, at the central thrust of the Queen’s Speech: the idea that we should level up. There are two things to say about that. The first is that we have to will the means as well as the ends, and the Government have failed to do that, as I will describe in a moment or two. Secondly, we have to analyse why the country needs levelling up in the way that the Prime Minister described.

Three aspects of the Queen’s Speech address the levelling-up agenda, and none of them works for Yorkshire. First, the Prime Minister wants infrastructure, but he must then explain why seven times as much is spent on transport in London as it is in parts of Yorkshire. Infrastructure takes decades to introduce, and people in our area and elsewhere will feel that it is jam tomorrow and that no difference will be made now.

Secondly, there is the idea of education and skills. But then the Prime Minister has to explain why, over the past 10 years, the Government cuts to school funding in my constituency were 16 times higher than the cuts in his constituency.

The final point that the Prime Minister makes is about IT, which he says is the way forward. The fact of the matter is that in my constituency and other parts of Yorkshire, the broadband speed is less than half of what it is in his constituency. For all those reasons, we can understand how it came about that output per worker in our area is half the level that it is in London, that wages in my constituency are £300 a week less than they are in the Prime Minister’s, that there are twice as many top jobs in administration and management in his constituency than mine, and that children born today in my constituency—according to his Social Mobility Commission—face a future that is much more difficult than it is in other parts of the country.

The Prime Minister climbed his way to the top by arguing for a turbocharged inequality, and now he is trying to paper over the cracks of the very inequality his party helped to create. This Queen’s Speech does not address the central problems facing my community and many others I try to speak for in this House every day—it papers over the cracks. We require a Government who will transform our country, create a rupture with the way in which this British establishment has ruled our country for the past two to three generations, and build a fairer, more just and more democratic society.