Violence against Women and Girls

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this important and timely debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who has been a strong voice for women and girls since her election.

It is estimated that, in Hull, almost 25,000 women and more than 18,000 children will experience domestic violence each year. To put that in real terms, three or four children in every classroom experience domestic violence. Humberside police respond to some 55 incidents of domestic violence every month, and 81% of victims are female. Children who live with domestic violence have an increased risk of behavioural problems and emotional trauma. Mental health difficulties will definitely arise in their adult lives as a result of their experiences.

Hull has been working hard to address the problem. The local primary care trust, working with Hull city council, has implemented the Strength to Change programme. This is a voluntary scheme aimed at men who are often the perpetrators of domestic violence. It is a groundbreaking project that makes a real difference to victims of violence. There is an excellent women’s centre in my constituency, Purple House, which provides support for hundreds of women victims. However, cuts are affecting these projects, and there is currently a review to decide whether these vital services are necessary—they definitely are.

The total cost of domestic abuse to the criminal justice system, health, social services and housing amounts to approximately £3.8 billion a year. It is clear that to prevent violence against women and girls, we need to do more to ensure both young men and young women are educated to develop positive and equal relationships with their peers. That education and support must start in schools. Statutory personal relationship education and early intervention in schools will help to change attitudes and behaviour towards domestic violence. Schools need to play a key role in educating boys and girls to realise that violence and abuse in relationships are completely unacceptable. I therefore urge the Government to make sex and relationships education statutory and standardised.

In the time left, I want to speak to an issue that is an absolute catastrophe and a scandal: female genital mutilation. The Government estimate that approximately 20,000 under-15-year-olds are at risk from this practice every year—more than 50 young female victims every day. It is important to make the point that such mutilation is motivated only by the need to control women. It is bullying, and the most grotesque abuse towards women. Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence since 1985. It is shocking that we have not yet seen a single prosecution. We have seen some positive steps in recent weeks and months, with the Crown Prosecution Service refocusing on this area, and I welcome the publication of its action plan. However, to eradicate this practice we need cross-departmental work involving the Home Office, Department for Education, Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and proper funding. We need to secure justice for victims and prosecution will prevent future victims of this despicable criminality. We must remember that this is a crime and that people should face the law when they carry out this vile and abusive violence.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I welcome the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I also welcome the Westminster Hall debate he secured recently on this topic. I am sure he welcomes, as I do, the commitment the Home Secretary made on Monday to look closely at bringing forward a prevalence study in the UK to update our data, and, in particular, to make sure that the NHS records female genital mutilation.

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, who has done a great deal of work on this issue as the chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation.

I will make one final point. The Metropolitan police set up Project Azure to tackle the problem of female genital mutilation across the country. However, a freedom of information request showed that the team consists of just one full-time police officer and one part-time police officer. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that this is sufficient policing. I welcome the Home Secretary’s work, but we need more resources to police this most disgusting violence against women and young girls.

[Michael Ellis]

I support what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree that the issue of female genital mutilation is important. I appreciate the difficulty in detecting and prosecuting cases, but it is important that prosecutions follow as this is an horrific crime. On the subject of statistics, does he agree that the reason why most statistics show men as the victims of crime is that men are mostly the perpetrators of crime?

[Karl Turner]

I am not necessarily sure that the hon. Gentleman’s latter point is entirely correct. What I will say is that his initial point was absolutely correct. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, all such appointments are made under very strict Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidelines and can be challenged. In the appointments for which I have been responsible, we have worked extensively across boundaries. We appointed the former Minister with responsibility for the Olympics to the Olympics board and I kept the former Minister with responsibility for sports as a trustee of the football foundation. That arrangement was not extended to the Conservative party when it was in opposition.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Mr Speaker, I am sure it has not escaped your notice that today is local digital radio switchover day in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, meaning better local radio services for local residents, including those in your constituency. I also welcome the One Billion Rising campaign, which is today highlighting the importance of eliminating violence against women and girls around the country.

Just to take the Valentine’s theme a little further, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team are very much in love with the musical artists who achieved success in the recent Grammys—Adele, and Mumford and Sons—and with Daniel Day-Lewis, who triumphed at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister explain why my excellent local radio station BBC Radio Humberside has to axe jobs at the bottom, while nationally the BBC continues to employ hundreds of executives, many of whom are paid more than the Prime Minister?

Police

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

In Hull, we will lose 220 police officers off the beat. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that will mean criminality on the street? Is not this debate about priorities?

[Mr Ruffley]

I do not accept that simple, direct correlation, as I shall explain.

In the 12 months to September 2012—the latest period for which crime survey figures are reported—we have seen an 8% decrease in overall crime against adults in England and Wales. We also have figures in that survey that show that since 1981 the lowest chance of being a victim of crime was in the 12 months up to that date. It should be a truth universally acknowledged that the effectiveness of a police force does not directly depend on the number of staff, but rather the way in which they are deployed.

We have already heard that the Home Secretary has scrapped central targets and energised the drive by chief constables to reduce unnecessary process—not just fewer forms, but a change in the way officers do things. There have been some encouraging examples of what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)— I see him in his place—and I looked at: the so-called four-force pilot of a much quicker and sharper incident reporting regime by officers on the beat. We have seen a rolling back of statutory charging in respect of more triable either-way offences, giving more discretion to the charging sergeant in the station so that he or she does not have to hang around on the telephone or wait for a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor to fetch up to give the charging authorisation. There are other examples, but we know that as a result of this crackdown on bureaucracy, memorably reported on by Sir Ronnie Flanagan in the second half of the last Parliament, progress is being made. The results are already there for us to see.

The number of police officers in front-line roles is projected to increase by 2% between March 2012 and March 2013. The proportion of officers in front-line roles is expected to increase from the 83% we inherited in 2010 to 89% in 2015. I found another statistic through research. According to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—fairly objective data there, I feel—in March 2010, 17% of officers were in non-front-line roles, while the Government are forecasting that their announced policy measures could bring this down to 10% by March 2015.

Abu Qatada

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Opposition really do need to get their act straight on whether they think we have acted too quickly or too slowly. They are trying to give two different messages this week. What is important is that the Government took the first opportunity to act to resume the deportation of Abu Qatada, and will indeed do so again.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

We know that the Home Secretary was warned about the uncertainty surrounding the deadline. We also know—or expect, at least—that she would have received advice from the Attorney-General. So can she explain why she did not simply wait 24 hours before rushing to the Dispatch Box to make her announcement?

[Mrs May]

I came to the Dispatch Box to make the announcement because the Government were taking action, and I rather thought that the House of Commons would like to hear about it.

Forensic Science Service

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) not only for his Committee’s review, but for his explanation of its position. The Committee, of course, is impartial—there is a majority of coalition Members on the Committee, so it is clearly not biased in any way.

I come to this debate with no scientific expertise, but with some knowledge as a criminal lawyer. I can see on the Government Benches very eminent members of the Bar, for whom I have a fair amount of respect. I understand that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—she is clearly not in the same party, but we get on particularly well—is a barrister.

I had suspected, although I did not know this until he spoke, that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) was probably a member of the Bar too. I was confused about parts of his speech. He seemed to suggest that Opposition Members had said there was no room for the private sector in the FSS. With respect, I suspect that he was reading a speech that he had written in anticipation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston might have said, rather than speaking in response to what he actually said.

I am concerned. The loss of the FSS is short-sighted and could lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice. My hon. Friend’s first criticism in the review was of the lack of consideration to the future of the FSS and of the Government’s failure to consult scientific experts. The Committee also expressed concerns about the loss of expertise—top scientists exiting the profession—and research and development work. That must be a concern for all Members on both sides of the House.

I echo those concerns, but I shall concentrate on the possible implications for the criminal justice system. Provision could be fragmented, which cannot be positive. Formerly, the FSS would independently deal with evidence from a crime scene, oversee tests and co-ordinate different pieces of evidence. I am concerned that the introduction of a number of different private providers—I do not instinctively dislike private providers—will fragment that process.

Having different providers dealing with different pieces of the jigsaw is fraught with dangers for justice and might lead to miscarriages of justice. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Northampton North, who seemed to say that the proposals are all about money, which is fine. Of course, at times of austerity, we need to be careful about how money is spent, but hon. Members will not think I am a raving lunatic if I suggest that £24 million a year is not an awful lot of money for justice, which is my chief concern.

We need joined-up, experienced teams to deal with those pieces of evidence from a crime to ensure that scientists have the complete picture. My concern is that fragmentation will mean that that will not happen as it does now.

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman does not think that £24 million is a lot to spend, but it is a £24 million loss when areas of the private sector can function without making such a loss. Does he not think it would be better if the cost to the Government were not a £24 million loss?

[Karl Turner]

Of course I do—it would be marvellous if money was not lost—but there are two sides to the argument, and I understand that the FSS says that some of that cost can be put down to the restructuring of the service.

I am also concerned about the potential for police bias. I am worried that moving forensic work in-house could undermine public trust in our judicial system and create a significant risk of police bias. There will be a clear conflict of interest if the police have to decide what evidence to test while under pressure to secure a conviction. We can see examples of that. The public must have complete trust in our judicial system, but that trust might be compromised by convictions based on forensic science that is no longer perceived to be truly independent.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman was kind in his opening comments, and I respond to him in equally warm terms, but does he not agree that the police already conduct all sorts of scientific analysis—for example, relating to fingerprints, footprints and the taking of hair samples for DNA analysis? He is right to be concerned about fairness in such circumstances, but the record shows that the police are perfectly fair when it comes to such scientific evidence.

[Karl Turner]

Of course the police conduct all sorts of inquiries and investigations—the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point—but my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has told us that his Committee had concerns when conducting its review, and it was right to point out those concerns.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the concerns of a constituent of mine about the changes in the FSS that led me to talk to Humberside police chiefs about what was happening. It was clear to me that they were determined to do a good job in the circumstances but that they were concerned about the change and felt that the previous system worked very well.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is worth noting that we are to hold elections for police commissioners in November, which might cause further problems.

Historically, prosecutors have relied on independent expert evidence from forensic specialists who have personally examined evidence collected in police investigations. The closure of this respected major research institution will, I think, lead to the loss of the most experienced forensic scientists. To be honest, I have heard little criticism of the FSS in robing rooms in Hull, and I have not heard members of the judiciary particularly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broxtowe looks at me with complete dismay.

[Anna Soubry]

This should not be a competition for anecdotal evidence but, in my experience, there is growing concern about the FSS’s ability to deliver its findings swiftly and efficiently. Those concerns have been growing for a number of years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us with experience of this part of the criminal justice system take the view that the service, sadly, is no longer fit for purpose?

[Karl Turner]

I do not accept that. Absolutely not. It is true that I have heard grumblings about aspects of expert evidence put before courts, but I do not think that there is a major problem. I have certainly not heard members of the judiciary complain particularly about the service.

One of my major concerns is about the Government’s rushed decision. As with many of their policies, this policy has been rushed and is fraught with difficulties. Their desire to create a market for the provision of scientific support is putting police authorities under unacceptable pressure. The closure of the FSS will have major implications for the criminal justice system and could result in miscarriages of justice.

Border Control Scheme

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

There are two separate issues here, both of which need addressing. One is the vast number of people who arrived legally under the previous Government’s conscious policy of increasing immigration to unsustainable levels. Secondly, there is what we are discussing this morning—the fact that our borders were not sufficiently secure. Just as important as bringing down the legal numbers is making our borders more secure by a number of methods, such as the use of technology, the pilots that we operated in the summer and changing how we look at private flights. The various actions that we are taking are all designed to make the border safer.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The question has been asked several times, and I know that the Minister is frustrated, but I wonder whether he will give an answer. Does he think it acceptable that on his watch the UKBA could not even check passengers coming off private flights? Any chance of an answer?

[Damian Green]

I am tempted to revive that old parliamentary chestnut: “I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.” As I keep saying, it is better to do it overseas, which is what we do. It is also safer, and all the experts agree it is safer—and frankly, if the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) were still sitting on the Government Benches, she would be saying that it was safer as well.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

It is the issue, and we will come to why.

The lack of control under the previous Government was illustrated by periodic catastrophes. They could be dismissed as one-offs—I am sure that that is the intention of Labour Members—but this Government inherited serial, systematic failings that they must clean up. Under the previous Government, the Home Office ignored warnings that visa claims were being backed by forged documents; 1,000 foreign prisoners were released and not considered for deportation; illegal immigrants were cleaning the Home Office; and 12 illegal workers were given security jobs in the Metropolitan police, one of whom guarded the site where the Prime Minister’s car was parked.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, because of the time.

We know from Brodie Clark that the relaxation of current checks dates back to 2008. One obvious question is whether the former Home Secretary—the former right hon. Member for Redditch—knew about or authorised the relaxation at that time. That is the institutional context and the legacy that the Government inherited.

I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement on Monday. One thing remains clear: we still have a long way to go to repair the inherited fractures in our border controls. The big picture, however, is that the Government are dealing with the operational strains that result from the strategic error of one Labour Home Secretary, who said that he could see no obvious upper limit on net migration to this country, being compounded by another who confessed that the UKBA was not fit for purpose but failed to clean up the mess. There are unanswered questions and we need to get to the bottom of each one—that is why three reviews are in place—but we need right answers, not rushed ones.

The motion is so patently a fishing expedition to find something—anything—that might cause political embarrassment. It has little to do with sound public policy; it is all about cheap politics. The net is cast so widely as to be deeply irresponsible on security and the burden on officials, who are working hard to rectify the mistakes that have been made. To demand the publication of every item of official advice and every record of exchange would have a chilling effect on the candour and flow of advice to Ministers. The risk is more of the informal advice and sofa government that we had under the previous Government.

Opposition Members cannot on the one hand cry that Ministers are exposing officials to the harsh glare of media limelight and on the other ask for every official utterance immediately to be released to the public. Things might be different if the shadow Home Secretary were asking specific, focused questions, but she is not. It is irresponsible to ask officials to drain the swamp in search of vignettes for Labour party press releases.

Frankly, the motion trivialises an important debate and the serious scrutiny that the House should exert. All hon. Members should be seriously concerned about the recent failings at the UKBA, but no hon. Member who is concerned could credibly vote for the motion.

Public Disorder

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I have the great honour of representing the town where I have lived all my life. Thousands of public servants, businessmen and people who work in the community and voluntary sector day by day do their best to make our town a better place to live. On Monday night a few hundred people did their worst to undo all that good work to attack our community. Shops and people’s homes above the shops were burned out in old town, west Croydon and New Addington, including Reeves, an iconic family business that survived the great depression and the blitz. More than 50 people were forced from their homes. More than 200 businesses were devastated and our tram system was put out of action. Let us be clear: there is no justification whatever for such organised criminality.

Contrary to some reports, those responsible were not all young and they came from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. They represent only a tiny minority. The real Croydon is the public servants: the outnumbered police officers and the firemen who risked serious injury to protect people; the council officers who the next morning tried to house the homeless; the hundreds of people who turned out to clear up our streets; the people who have pledged money to help businesses rebuild; the businesses that provided clothing for those who lost everything in the fires; and the people of New Addington who turned out to defend their shopping centre. Our town is not perfect, but we are proud of it and we are united in our determination that we will not let the wreckers win.

What has happened over the past few days is a big test for the Government. For too long in this country we have been too soft on those who break the law and too tolerant of those who have no respect for other people. My constituents are looking for four things. The first is to restore order. The Prime Minister came to Croydon on Tuesday and I am deeply grateful. He promised extra police and different tactics and he delivered on that, but those numbers and those tactics need to continue and we need to know why they were not in place on Monday. I also welcome what he said in the House about fresh powers on curfews and on modern social network technology and on powers for the police in relation to people who cover their faces.

Secondly, people want criminals brought to justice. CCTV played a crucial role in identifying who was responsible and I hope that Members on the Treasury Bench will take note of that. People want those responsible to be properly punished and to make reparation to those they have damaged. They want those who have committed these crimes not to have access to taxpayers’ money in the form of benefits. They want those who are council tenants evicted, so that decent people on the waiting list get a home instead. They want those who are not British citizens removed from this country.

The third thing relates to compensation, and I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister had to say about compensation for residents and businesses. The fourth thing is trying to sort out the underlying issues that led to the behaviour we saw. Just because there is absolutely no excuse for what happened does not mean that we in the House should not try to understand.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he agree that the deployment of 16,000 officers in the capital meant that yobs were off the street, and that the Government’s proposed plans to cut police numbers mean that yobbos will be on our streets?

[Gavin Barwell]

I want the level of visible policing to continue. I recognise that we have to cut police budgets because of the economic position we face, but I want the current level of visible policing to continue.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I would like to focus on part 1 of the Bill—on the proposals for directly elected police and crime commissioners. The proposals throw up a wide range of issues and will fundamentally undermine the foundations of policing, ending years of police independence from politicians. There is a great deal in the Bill to which I object, but I want to focus on two particular concerns. First, the implementation of elected police and crime commissioners is an expensive process, coming at a time when our police forces are facing deep and serious cuts. Secondly, the Bill concentrates a great deal of power into the hands of one person—the elected commissioner—and will, in my view, lead to our sacrificing the police’s political independence, which has existed successfully for more than 170 years.

The reforms come at a crucial time for the police—a time when they have to absorb the impact of cuts to both the Home Office and local government funding and when, despite the Tory rhetoric, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massively underfunded shake-up of the criminal justice system. For those with an interest in crime and justice, these are indeed worrying times. It happens to be a fact that under the last Labour Government, crime fell by 43%, while the chance of being a victim of crime fell to a 30-year low. There can be no doubt that that great achievement was underpinned by record police numbers. That progress is now being put at risk by reckless cuts.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman talks about police numbers. Will he remind us what happened to police numbers in Humberside in the last year of the Labour Government? If he cannot remember, I will remind him that we saw a fall of 130 in the number of officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

It is convenient for the hon. Gentleman to suggest such a thing, but the reality of this Government’s proposals is that police numbers will fall substantially. He represents Humberside, as I do, and I am sure that he, too, will have heard the concerns of police officers about the risks to which this Government are exposing them. Police numbers will fall as a result.

The reforms are happening at a time when, despite the rhetoric that we hear, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massive shake-up of the system. Although the Home Office has claimed that the annual cost of running police commissioners and panels will be the same as the cost for police authorities, we understand that extra costs of £136.5 million will be incurred, owing to the need to hold elections. In addition, there is a further £5 million fund for redundancy payments. It seems that this Government cannot implement any policy without slashing jobs. The Tory manifesto stated: “Policing relies on consent.” My fear is that the Bill will stretch the public’s consent to breaking point. One has to imagine a situation in which police numbers fall and crime increases, while at the same time the public are asked to shoulder the cost of another level of bureaucracy in the policing system.

I also have grave concerns, as do many others, about operational independence and the politicisation of the police force. The political independence of the police is as important in our democracy as the independence of the judiciary. A crucial principle of UK policing is its operational independence and unwavering commitment to non-partisanship. If policing operations are overseen by someone who is politically motivated, maintaining police independence will become increasingly difficult.

[Mr Burley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

Not at the moment. I would like to make some progress.

Any change to police force operations must ensure that that independence remains. The Government’s proposals will not maintain that crucial division. Although they have stated at every turn that forces will retain their operational independence, I do not feel that their proposals can even remotely achieve that. The political interference begins from the very start of the process, with the selection of candidates. Even if election expenses are capped, prospective candidates will have to invest money and raise their profiles across the force area, as well as picking up issues that will help with their campaigning.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Karl Turner]

Not at the moment.

The Government’s proposals inevitably restrict the range of candidates to either those who are sufficiently rich or those with party political backing. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are making comments from a sedentary position, but that happens to be a fact. The process of electing police and crime commissioners will be fraught with difficulty. It is not beyond the imagination of any Member of this House to see that the sensitive parameters of the commissioner’s role and the importance of operational independence may be compromised, as candidates seek popular support on local law and order issues. Besides that, I feel that we are in danger of unrealistically raising the expectations of local communities about what a commissioner can truly achieve. That will serve only to undermine trust in police forces further.

Once the polling has drawn to a close and the commissioner is in place, there is great potential for further problems to arise. There is an increasing risk that someone who has been elected will be reluctant to make an unpopular decision, regardless of its necessity. A prime example would be on the visibility of police officers, which is a particular concern to me. In my view, an elected commissioner would prioritise highly visible policing, such as policing to tackle antisocial behaviour, while less visible policing, such as policing to tackle organised crime, high-value electronic fraud and paedophile rings, would be left to one side. An elected commissioner would be faced with a stark choice: do they do what is in the best interests of getting re-elected, or do they do what is in the best interests of community safety? The Government’s proposals mean that policing decisions will be made in people’s narrow electoral interest, and not in the wider national interest. That is a concern supported by Sir Paul Stephenson, who stated that

“we must ensure that this does not become just talking about popular visibility issues”.

The powers conferred on the commissioners, such as drawing up the police and crime plan, the firing of chief constables and the control of the budget, will give them a broad amount of control over operational matters. They will get to decide that visible crime such as antisocial behaviour is prioritised over invisible crime such as the criminality I discussed a few minutes ago.

Bearing in mind the commissioners’ wide-ranging powers and the party political nature of their election, I also have grave concern about the hijacking of these positions by extremists. Having one person in control of such a vast power, particularly in regard to law enforcement, will naturally attract those from the far right. To dismiss these concerns as “scaremongering” is both short-sighted and inappropriate. Twenty years ago, no one would have imagined the British National party sitting in the European Parliament. Despite not winning a parliamentary seat in this place at the last general election, its overall share of the vote increased.

This Bill poses an important question for the future of this country’s policing. We are faced with the choice of abandoning political independence and objective decision making for politicised choices made in the electoral interest. At stake in this Bill is the integrity of our police forces. Chief constables, such as the one in my area, are expressing concern about being forced to make cuts that will impact on front-line services. The Government must decide what they value most: is it to be the ill-thought-out, dangerous and costly policy or will they fund the police properly and ensure that front-line services are not affected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been quite strange to observe Opposition members baulking at the suggestion that police and crime commissioners should be elected. One would have expected them to support the democratic process.

[Karl Turner]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Ellis]

By all means. I have a minute left.

[Karl Turner]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposal politicises the police?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, summoned chief constables from around the country and put them under pressure to deal with knife crime. That was a form of politicisation of the police, and it is not something that police commissioners will be doing. Democratically electing police commissioners will, in fact, legitimise them.

I, for one, support all the provisions in the Bill, and commend it as an excellent and honourable measure that will increase the democratic process.

Crime and Policing

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

The key point that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, must concede is this: if we are to de facto ring-fence the police budget, it is incumbent on the Labour party to say where the cuts would occur in other areas of Government activity. Would it be social services, transport, health, education or defence? We are not receiving those answers from Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The Opposition’s collective amnesia, articulated by the shadow Home Secretary, is interesting. He had a bit of a mea culpa moment over the Licensing Act 2003, of which I shall say more later, and which was also a catastrophe. It has created a calamitous situation, and now huge amounts of public resources have to be spent on the consequences of an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that demonstrably increased antisocial behaviour and impacted across public services, as the shadow Home Secretary would concede.

We heard nothing about the botched mergers forced on police authorities in 2006, which led indirectly to the demise of Charles Clarke, the former right hon. Member for Norwich South. We heard no apology for that policy, which took up a lot of time and destabilised local police authorities and forces without any—let us remember this—proper, meaningful consultation with local people, elected councillors or others. So the shadow Home Secretary is gilding the lily by attacking the Government for having the temerity to put forward proposals, with checks and balances, for directly elected officials, who will be responsible for policing and crime in their local areas.

There is also selective amnesia in quoting the Audit Commission. Its most recent publication, “Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service”, stated that

“the scrutiny and challenge of spending has so far been poor. Public debate and political interest has focused more on increasing police officer numbers, with a simple equation that more is better”.

On that subject, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on his wise words on the balance between inputs and outputs in policing and crime reduction. The Audit Commission also made a damning indictment of the previous Government’s paradigm of always spending more of taxpayers’ money without looking at the results:

“there is no evidence that high spending is delivering improved productivity”.

It would be unkind and churlish to say that everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong. There was consensus on many areas—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on that. Of course, we support the proposal enunciated in the December 2009 White Paper, “Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed”, on minimum service standards, gang injunctions, protecting witnesses and communities from intimidation and focusing much more on the victims of antisocial behaviour. Who could disagree with that? But that was after 13 years of judicial activism, legislative activism, more quangos, more reports and a failure to free up police so that they can deliver what they need to deliver.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman kindly accept that between 1997 and 2010, crime fell by 43%? The coalition Government’s measures put that at risk and buck that trend. The chief constable in my area is concerned about the measures about to be taken by this coalition Government—is the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Jackson]

There is not a scrap of empirical or academic evidence to support the hon. Gentleman’s views at the moment, although there might be in 18 months. If one asks chief constables, “Are you desperate to spend less money in your police force?”, surprise, surprise, they will probably say no. It is a matter of regret that some chief constables are engaging in a political debate, when they should be thinking in more innovative ways about delivering more for the people whom they serve and not debating issues and speculating about hypotheses that are unproven.

If Labour Members were as fair-minded as I have been today—I see the wry smile on the face of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson); we seem to cross swords in police debates fairly regularly—they would admit that they had supported many aspects in our radical reform of policing. There will probably be mergers of small police forces based on local agreement, which the Labour party has supported, although it went about it the wrong way. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we cannot continue with a situation where it takes 11 and a half hours to process an arrest, and where 11 to 14% of the police are on the beat, as compared with the 22% who are processing paperwork in the police station. We have to think about the overhaul of health and safety and its impact on the working conditions and operations of police forces, and about the terms and conditions of police officer enforcement. We have to be more transparent in the way that we involve people.

I pay tribute to the sincerity of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is obviously greatly involved in her local community. However, closing the circle or completing the equation, as it were, will also mean having transparency and openness in crime data, and particularly crime figures in local areas, because whether we like it or not, people often do not believe Government crime figures. In answer to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the British crime survey can be criticised. It is not perfect and, in particular, it overlooks the impact of crime on young people.

We will make a commitment with our directly elected police commissioners, and there will be checks and balances in place, which is important—these are not going to “Rambo” figures. Incidentally, as the right hon. Member for Delyn knows, in my maiden speech, on 6 June 2005—he can read it in Hansard if he wishes and if he has nothing better to do—I called for an elected police commissioner in Peterborough and for commissioners throughout the country. I have always consistently believed in having them, not because I want “Rambo” or “RoboCop” figures, but because policing is such an important area of our national life that we must involve people. People from abroad look at us and think, “Why are they not doing it in the UK?”—direct democracy, because it matters to local people.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003—1 million alcohol-related crimes in 2009-10; 47% of all violent crimes fuelled by alcohol; 6.6 million alcohol-related attendances at hospital accident and emergency; 1.2 million ambulance call-outs as a direct result of alcohol, costing £372 million; and an entire indicative cost of £8 billion to £30 billion. We all see the problem every day in our constituencies. Just this week, a senior judge in Peterborough referred to the carnage in Peterborough city centre caused by alcohol-related violence as the reason why decent, law-abiding people and families did not want to come into the city centre. The problem is not wholly the fault of the previous Government, but they did not tackle the issue as effectively and robustly as they could have done.

Let me finish by supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and others on resources. We can deliver a better service by sharing resources, leasing premises, and using specialist support services such as management, payroll and human resources services. There is consensus on that. We also have to tackle overtime, but not with the platitudinous undertakings that the previous Government gave. As in so many other areas, we need to take tough decisions as a result of the previous Government’s legacy.

Unless the Labour party moves on from the paradigm in which more tax, more spending, more quangos and fleecing the taxpayer can provide a better service, it will not deserve to be re-elected to government or to serve the people of this country. We have a responsibility now, and it falls to the coalition Government to tackle the endemic issues in the police service, so that our constituents can be protected at a cost that they can afford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

Yes, entirely, and I would like community support officers to have the chance to become specials.

To sum up, our crime policy must move away from that of the previous Government, which was about bureaucracy and the big state.

[Karl Turner]

I might be wrong, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that police offers go from being paid to being unpaid. Is that the case?

[Robert Halfon]

I am saying completely the opposite. I am saying that for the special constables we should create a model similar to that of the Territorial Army. We should have a special constable force and its officers would be paid for the hours that they do, in the same way as TA people are paid.

In summary, I think that we want to move away from the big state and bureaucratic policies on crime to an approach based on accountability and community. That is why I oppose the Opposition’s motion.