Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome the helpful comments the Minister made in response to the publication today of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, and his commitment to having a service that has the confidence of the British people? It is important that we discuss immigration in an open and transparent way, whether in the Prime Minister’s speech this lunch time, or in last Friday’s speech on bonds by the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he agree that we cannot implement the proposals unless the UK Border Agency is fit for purpose and we have cleared the backlog of a third of a million cases? Is it not time to take the agency back firmly under the control of Ministers?

[Mr Harper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman both for his question and for his work in chairing the Home Affairs Committee. I see the Select Committee as a partner with the Government, challenging us and ensuring that we keep focusing and improving the agency’s performance. Although it is an agency, I had not noticed in the past year any difference in the level of accountability that either he expects from me, as a result of its performance, or from this House, as is evidenced by these questions. However, I will reflect further on what he has to say.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Price

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues. It is undoubtedly true to say, regardless of what conclusion one reaches on this issue, that some young people with low disposable incomes drink irresponsibly and are price-sensitive when buying alcohol. They are a particular problem. The question that we need to resolve is whether minimum unit pricing is the best way of tackling that problem, but that is precisely why we are having a consultation, and we will announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Four years ago the Home Affairs Committee unanimously recommended minimum pricing for alcohol.

[Mr Bradshaw]

It was wrong.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend was not on the Committee so he was not part of that recommendation. Powerful arguments have been made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on health grounds. The Minister will also know it costs an extra £59 per person for the police to process someone who is involved in alcohol-related crime. Given the powerful arguments in the consultation and in the Cabinet, on either side on this issue, when will we have a final decision?

[Mr Browne]

During my initial response, when Labour Members were sneering and jeering, I was explaining about early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy, which are precisely the types of measures that the Government have taken to address the problems the right hon. Gentleman raises. Of course there are health considerations as well, although one could make the case for an ever higher minimum unit on the basis that the higher the price, the greater the reduction in health harms. A balance needs to be struck, and we are seeking to strike it through the consultation. We will announce our conclusions when we have finished.

Police

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I have given way before, twice. When budgets are tight, it puts an even greater onus on Government to achieve greater efficiencies and value for money—an even greater onus. We recognise the importance of the police.

Although funding reductions are unavoidable, the Government have substantially reformed the police over the last few years, and that reform is working. We have fundamentally changed the accountability framework for policing, introducing direct democratic accountability. Police and crime commissioners were elected in November and are now actively consulting on their police and crime plans and budgets for 2013-14. Those plans will set the scale of their ambition for the future, but already they have begun to demonstrate that they are driving forward innovative and flexible use of their budgets and taking bold decisions.

We have already seen evidence of that bold leadership, with forces looking seriously at how they manage their estate, including the future of New Scotland Yard here in London. We have seen the determination of other PCCs to put more police officers on the street through raising the precept, in some cases; others are restructuring their budgets to secure the future of police community safety officers; and others are looking to push collaboration to new areas to secure value for money for their electorate. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but innovative policy making is taking place to achieve greater community safety and value for money. In the knowledge that they will be held to account directly by the public, PCCs are seeking to take measures to maintain and improve the service to the public within what is, as I have already admitted, a very tight financial climate.

PCCs, their chief constables and the officers and staff they lead are now supported by the new College of Policing. The college will support the fight against crime by equipping the police with the skills and knowledge they need to provide the very best service to their communities. Headed by an outstanding chief constable, Alex Marshall, and with Professor Shirley Pearce as its chair, the college will work in the public interest, supporting the police in their critical mission to cut crime by driving professionalism and integrity in policing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Minister probably knows, the chief executive of the college gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. Will he help me with the budgets of the new landscape? As he knows, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency have been abolished and will now form part of the National Crime Agency. The total budget of SOCA and the NPIA was £865 million, but the NCA’s budget will be £400 million and the college’s budget will be £50 million. What has happened to the rest of the £865 million?

[Mr Browne]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which we considered at length during the Committee stage of the Crime and Courts Bill. The crucial point is that only a small proportion of the NPIA’s budget is being transferred to the NCA. From memory—I do not have the paper to hand—I think the figure is £12 million or £13 million. The functions covered by the vast majority of the NPIA’s budget will not be transferred to the NCA. It is not accurate, therefore, to conflate SOCA’s budget and the NPIA’s budget and say that between them their budgets were bigger than the NCA’s budget, because quite a lot of the NPIA features will not be transferring to the NCA.

Few things could be more directly relevant to public confidence and the British model of policing by consent than the integrity of our police officers. Police officers are citizens in uniform and their fellow citizens must be able to have confidence that they exercise their powers without fear or favour. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a range of measures to enhance police integrity in the House yesterday. Greater independent investigation of the most serious and sensitive complaints against the police will be made possible by rebalancing resource between the Independent Police Complaints Commission and force professional standards directorates. A publicly available list of struck-off officers will ensure that those who are dismissed for misconduct cannot re-enter the police by the back door. We will significantly strengthen vetting of all officers, particularly the most senior officers, and we will introduce national registers of pay and perks, gifts and hospitality, contact with the media and outside interests.

All that will be underpinned by a code of ethics for the police—a single set of ethical standards by which officers and staff will work. The college will own and develop this and PCCs and chief officers will ensure that it runs right through policing and the careers of police officers and police staff. Accountability, professionalism and integrity—these are the areas where our reforms are focused and on which we are making a substantial difference.

We also rely, however, on being able to continue to attract the very best people into policing. For the avoidance of doubt, outstanding people are already attracted to some of the most difficult and demanding jobs available in our police forces. We need to ensure that we continue to attract the people with the right skills and expertise to forge a force fit for the 21st century. That means opening up policing. We are consulting on three direct entry schemes that will open up the police to a wider pool of talent, so that forces will be able to bring in people with diverse backgrounds and new perspectives. Combined with the strong leaders already working in forces and the improved nurturing of internal talent through the College of Policing, we will have a police force that is even better equipped to fight crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

One police force where crime has not fallen happens to be that of Devon and Cornwall where, as I recall, the hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament. I may be wrong, but I think he is a Member of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall, and that is one area where crime has not fallen. When he stood on his election manifesto for 3,000 extra police officers at the last election, did he think that three years later he would go back to Devon and Cornwall police with a higher crime rate and 415 fewer officers? I do not think so.

Let me continue. The Government are scrapping antisocial behaviour orders and putting at risk crime-fighting tools such as the European arrest warrant. Yesterday in Committee we had a debate about the European arrest warrant and the Minister—who stood on a manifesto saying that he wished to keep that warrant—could not tell me which aspects of it he intended to opt back in to because he was fettered by nine Conservative Members. He has sold his soul to Government positions.

The Minister knows that the Labour party would have cut 12% from police budgets—I am honest about that. We would have cut £1 billion over the three-year period, including the year of this grant, because that is what we said we would do. During a debate before the general election, I recall the Minister debating police numbers with me. On 27 October 2009 he said:

“People like to see a visible police presence in their communities…I am genuinely astonished that the Conservatives want to make drastic cuts to budgets”.

In the same debate, the Minister spoke about his Conservative council in Somerset:

“The Conservative cut in funding for the police was kept secret before the county council elections in June.”

He promised 3,000 police officers but he is now promoting a 20% cut to the budget. His proposal cannot get much more secret than that.

In response to a debate that set the tone for this three-year budget, the then hon. Member for Chesterfield, who lost his seat at the general election to my hon. Friend the current Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), said:

“Such cuts, should they snowball and continue in the next year or two, will be a tragedy.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 340.]

That was the then hon. Member for Chesterfield speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I expect that the Minister will not listen to me and I accept that. We have had honest debates and I have seen more of him in the past three weeks than I have seen of my wife because we have spent lots of time in Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not wish to interrupt this pre-Valentine’s day discussion between my right hon. Friend and the Minister, but did the Committee consider the budgets of the various organisations being set up by the Government? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the sums do not add up? Where has all the money gone, bearing in mind the responsibilities that will be transferred to the new organisations? Did he manage to elicit any more information than I received from the Minister today?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and the Committee explored in some detail the differences between the budgets for the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and the new National Crime Agency. We shed light on the fact that there is a major gap in the funding, but we could not get answers on where that funding has disappeared. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who so ably leads the Home Affairs Committee, will explore that in some detail over the next few weeks.

The Minister and I will not have a meeting of minds on this matter, but perhaps he will listen to a few voices from out in the community. For example, an individual who shall remain nameless for the moment said:

“I just want the public to understand how tight things really are because I think there’s a feeling out there that it’s OK.”

That was the Conservative police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer in Cheshire, complaining about the fact that he has to bring forward a budget axing 38 police officers and 25 back-office staff.

In a statement this week, Nick Alston, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Essex, said that the force’s financial position is

“even more challenging than I suspected when taking office just over two months ago.”

The police and crime commissioner for Cornwall, Tony Hogg, again a Conservative party member, said that the Government’s offer of freezing council tax in exchange for a 1% increase in grant would leave the force facing a “fiscal cliff” in two year’s time and an annual shortfall of £1.8 million. He added:

“There would be a critical reduction in pro-active crime reduction, there would be a critical reduction in partnership, community and early intervention…and a critical reduction in police visibility and hence reassurance to the public.”

I look forward to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), among others, voting for the budget today. The local police and crime commissioner thinks it will cause great difficulties in Cornwall.

In Gloucestershire, the police and crime commissioner—not Labour—said that

“we won’t be able to absorb the cuts the Government expects us to make next year and in subsequent years which could affect frontline services and our ability to reduce crime. If we use our reserves, which has also been suggested…we would have no money to replace…equipment or improve our infrastructure.”

The police and crime commissioner in Cumbria—again, not a Labour member—said:

“It is without question a challenging position with the financial forecasts indicating that £10.2 million of savings will have to be delivered between 2013/14 and 2016/17…in addition to the £12.1 million of savings already achieved.”

Those are police and crime commissioners, not Labour members, and they are all expressing concerns and having to raise money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). He speaks with enormous knowledge about policing issues, and, as one who has attended many debates on the police grant —both in opposition and supporting the Government—he has always come to the Chamber with good and fresh ideas. It is a mystery to me why he is not in the Home Office doing the job, because he knows so much about it.

I must say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s opening remarks. I like the Minister, who has appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and who is always very robust, but in a debate of this kind there is no need for knockabout stuff, because we are dealing with extremely serious issues. I am still a bit puzzled about why the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was not here to open the debate. He may have other important business to deal with, but I should have thought that he would be able to open a debate of this kind, as he has done in the past. Obviously a deal has been done on the Front Bench, however, and we are happy to hear the Government’s view.

I, too, was present at the memorial service for Paul McKeever, and, like the shadow policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, I want to express my appreciation for a life that was dedicated to public service. He was the policeman’s policeman. Hundreds of people turned up at Southwark cathedral on Saturday, including the Home Secretary—who read the lesson very eloquently—the shadow Home Secretary, the policing Minister, the shadow policing Minister, and the entire hierarchy of the police service. That was because Paul McKeever was very special as an advocate of what the service does throughout Britain. I think it right for us to start our debates by paying tribute to the work of the police force in this country.

Let me now make some remarks about the new landscape of policing, and about the reduction in the overall police grant and how it will affect some of the important institutions that the Government have created.

Let me say first that I am a great fan of what the Home Secretary is doing in reforming the landscape of policing. I am attached not to particular organisations, but to the services that are provided for local people. However, as we approach the halfway point in those changes in the landscape, I am not entirely convinced that at the end of the day we shall meet the Home Secretary’s original objective. When she started the process in 2010, her aim was to unclutter the policing landscape, but I think that we may well end up with more organisations rather than fewer.

Secondly, I should like to know what is happening to all this money. Of course there cannot be an immediate transfer from one organisation to another. However, the Home Affairs Committee has been studying the matter for the last two years, and in the course of our latest inquiry, into leadership and standards in the police, we have been looking at the organisations that are being abolished or reformed and the new organisations that are being created. I am afraid that the sums do not add up.

Evidence was given to the Committee by the former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). When I asked him what the budget of the new National Crime Agency would be, the Home Office director of finance was sitting next to him, and he did not know what it would be. We do know that the combined budgets of the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency amount to about £860 million. We also know that the budget of the National Crime Agency will be about £400 million. Yesterday, in his assured evidence to the Committee, Alex Marshall said he would have a budget of £50 million and a staff of 600.

I am not very good at maths. I will not reveal my GCSE grade to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you did better than I did. However, I think that we are about £315 million short. We are not talking about a few bob here and there; we are talking about a lot of money, and in the context of the overall reduction in the police grant over a number of years, it is really serious money. I am not trying to put the Under-Secretary of State on the spot—I do not know whether he will be winding up the debate—but it would be great if those sums could be confirmed, either today or in writing to me or to the Committee.

[Richard Drax]

Is not one of the downsides of all these budget cuts, particularly in constituencies such as Dorset, which contains vast rural areas, the temptation to bring all the officers in from the rural areas and to close local police stations? I think that there is a loss of confidence, not in what the police are doing but in their ability to do it, because there is no one out there.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Because of his profession, he knows about these issues. I am sure he is an assiduous Member who works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. One of the public’s first concerns is whether they can see their local police officer—the bobby on the beat—walking around, and whether they can go to the local police station and report crimes and feel safe as a result. Not all of us can have a Dr Who-type TARDIS—I certainly do not—but it is important that we give that visibility in respect of both the physical building and police officers.

Where responsibility for counter-terrorism will lie is not yet settled. The Government are ring-fencing its £563 million budget, and I support that, but there is to be a new landscape of policing, and a decision needs to be made soon as to whether it will stay with the Metropolitan police or move to the National Crime Agency. My distinguished colleague from the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), will correct me if I am wrong, but I think we recommended in one of our reports that it should go to the National Crime Agency, as counter-terrorism is a national issue.

[Dr Huppert]

indicated assent.

[Keith Vaz]

Another Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is also present, and he is nodding in agreement. We suggested that in part because we were worried the NCA might not have enough to do, which is, indeed, the case at present. It has very few staff and it is not yet established to the satisfaction of the Government and the Select Committee. We need to have a decision on this matter soon, and we were promised a decision after the Olympics. I do not know whether the Minister wants to answer that question now, but if not, I am happy to wait until the winding-up speeches.

I am also concerned about the huge amount of money currently being spent on historical investigations. The Select Committee has asked witnesses about that on many occasions. At present we have Operations Alice, Elveden, Weeting. Tuleta, Pallial, Yewtree and Herne. We heard only yesterday from the Home Secretary that Herne—which has been under way for the past year, with a number of police officers involved, and at a cost to the taxpayer of £1.2 million—will now be taken over by the chief constable of Derbyshire. That operation deals with important issues involving undercover agents and the recent public revelations, and a lot of money is being spent on these matters. I calculate that £44.8 million is currently being spent on the police investigating other police officers who have failed to come up to scratch. A lot of money is going to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, too, to deal with past errors by certain police forces, such as at Hillsborough. In discussing the reduction of the grant to local police and crime and commissioners, we need to consider all the money currently being spent on all these operations.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds is the spokesman on good procurement in this House, and we have had many discussions about the matter. I welcome the decision of the deputy mayor of London, Stephen Greenhalgh, to take a careful look at how the Metropolitan police have spent their procurement budget. He took evidence from Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on the issue. When we commission companies to act if the public sector cannot act, we must choose only companies with a good track record. Only yesterday it was announced that G4S was going to have to hand back to the taxpayer about £70 million. We should take into account the expenditure from the police budget that goes on companies such as G4S. The Select Committee was very clear that, as a result of the big mistakes G4S made, it ought to have handed back all its management fee of £57 million plus all the other money it ought to have spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North became an internet hit with his famous “humiliating shambles” soundbite. He will always be remembered for uttering those words on the Select Committee—and for many other words uttered, too, of course—because it was, indeed, a humiliating shambles. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds has said, we ought to be very careful about dispensing public money to private companies that do not come up to scratch.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the need to carry people with us. The Minister, who has responsibility for security matters, is an avuncular type who seeks consensus. We will see that when he comes to the Dispatch Box. I will not say he is the most courteous of the Home Office Ministers as the others might get upset if I were to do so, but he does not pick a fight. The current Home Office policy is, in effect, picking a fight with the people who have to implement the changes, however. Now is not the best time to be cutting police officers’ pensions, forcing them out under rule A19 and cutting their pay retrospectively—although I perfectly understand why we might need to make changes for new recruits.

I remember my last conversation with Paul McKeever on this subject. He passionately supported treating police officers with the respect, courtesy and dignity they deserve. My only real row with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was about police pay. He was quite robust with me when he asked me not to go on a demonstration under the last Labour Government in support of the police who were having their pay cut. I said to him then—and I say to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers now—that we must carry the work force with us. If we say we have the best police service in the world, the only way to express our admiration for what the police have done is to treat them with proper respect—to have a dialogue with them, to stop cutting their pay and conditions, to speak to them because they know best day in, day out. As we have seen recently in Manchester and other parts of the country, they lay down their lives for us. They go out in the morning and they do not know whether they are coming back at night, unlike all of us in this Chamber today. If we do not carry them with us, the world-class brand reputation that we currently have will be damaged for ever.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in what has been a lively debate on the police funding settlement. I recognise a number of the points about reductions in funding, but we are confident that they are manageable. The police are making the necessary savings and have transformed how they deliver the service to the public. That has been achieved along with reductions in overall crime.

We inherited the toughest fiscal challenge in living memory and are having to take tough decisions, but I recognise, as do the Government, that the police do an incredibly important and challenging job. Our reforms recognise and build on that. As right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted, this year again we have seen many examples of professional, selfless and brave front-line policing to keep the public safe and to fight crime. As the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted, our thoughts are particularly with the families, friends and colleagues of Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes.

I would also like to recognise the work of the late Paul McKeever, with whom I had the pleasure of having a number of meetings and exchanges. He would have said—and I would agree—that we have the best police force in the world, and I pay tribute to the work they do, day in, day out, to keep us all safe. I also pay tribute to the work of our chief constables and senior officers in achieving savings, driving efficiencies and cutting crime.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has challenged forces to drive through efficiencies and has shown that about half of the savings required nationally can be achieved just by forces raising their performance to the average of their immediate peers. There are other areas, however, where the police can make, and are making, further savings, without affecting the level of service to the public—for instance, by adopting an increasingly national approach to buying equipment and services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made the point about how efficiencies can be secured through such routes.

Forces are rightly prioritising front-line delivery. The number of officers working in back-office roles fell by 20.3% between March 2010 and March 2012, and we are encouraging forces to consider options for reforming support services, including collaboration. HMIC has stated that forces have plans to deliver 87% of the required savings by March 2015, indicating that police forces are working well towards the savings that need to be made. Its report also stated that the proportion of officers in front-line roles is due to increase to 89% in March 2015. Furthermore, its report found that, as well as crime going down, victim satisfaction was up and response times to emergencies had largely been maintained.

We have also made changes to how the police procure their goods and services. We estimate that the police can save up to £200 million per year by 2014-15 on commonly purchased police goods and non-IT services. We have continued our reform of the police. PCCs have now been introduced and are holding the police to account, while ensuring that the public have a say in how policing is delivered in their community. As we have heard, the College of Policing has also been introduced and the package of measures announced by the Home Secretary yesterday will further enhance the integrity of the police.

A number of important points have been made today, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), to whom I pay tribute for the work he did in opposition. He continues to highlight the need to focus on freeing up police time. The Government are clear that the police should be focusing on fighting crime, not paperwork. The work we have done to reduce bureaucracy could result in up to 4.5 million hours of police time saved across all forces every year—the equivalent of more than 2,100 officers back on the beat.

[Keith Vaz]

I welcome the way in which the Minister is conducting the debate from the Dispatch Box. Will he clarify one point in respect of the Home Secretary’s very good statement yesterday? Will the register of second jobs that police officers are now going to have to declare be held by HMIC or by the College of Policing?

[James Brokenshire]

That is one of the details relating to the most effective way to deliver on the type of register that is being established. I am sure that, given the very good scrutiny that the Home Affairs Select Committee provides, the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee will follow through on the important issues that will follow from the well-received announcement by the Home Secretary yesterday.

I want to comment on some of the points that have been raised today on the arrangements for damping and on the police allocation formula. The Government will conduct a fundamental review of the formula, as the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) said earlier, and we will seek the views of police and crime commissioners across England and Wales. Determining how funding should be allocated to the police is a complex and important matter. It requires careful consideration and it will take time. In that context, it is important that that work is undertaken before we can consider the arrangements for damping.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) highlighted the question of the National Policing Improvement Agency budget. He focused on the funding for the College of Policing but, in addition, the Home Office will be engaged in funding relating to the provision of Airwave and to the Police ICT Company Ltd. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to connect one element of funding to another, but there are other elements involved. I hope that this is a helpful explanation.

A number of points have been raised about police pay and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds said that pay accounted for a large proportion of police spending, and that the police pay bill was a key issue. Our aim has been to have pay and conditions that support forces in driving out costs and making the best use of their resources. That is why we have asked the police, along with the rest of the public sector, to take a two-year pay freeze, and subject to any decisions by the Police Negotiating Board and an agreement on staff pay, we expect the Government’s policy for public sector pay restraint also to apply to the police. We have also taken forward proposals relating to the Winsor review. The reforms from part 1 will save about £150 million when fully implemented and will give chief officers greater flexibility in how they deploy their officers and shape their work forces.

I was interested to hear the assertion from the Opposition Front Bench that Labour would be looking for 12% savings. However, the Opposition apparently also support reforms to overtime and shift patterns, the pay freeze and the police arbitration tribunal’s decision on police pay. They must therefore be talking about 12% plus all those elements. When we analyse that, we find that they are in substantially the same position as the Government, although they did not accept that. If they are saying that they would implement 12% savings, which of those elements do they not accept? They will need to consider that question carefully, and it is interesting that they have not responded to that question today.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East asked me whether the counter-terrorism element should be part of the National Crime Agency. He and his Committee highlighted that point in their recent report. I can tell him that there will be no wholesale review of counter-terrorism policing arrangements in England and Wales until after the NCA is up and running. We judge that to be the right time to look at that issue, although we recognise that it needs to be examined in the context of the changed landscape for policing. On the point about rural policing, the formula distributes funding based on relative work loads in an area, and apportions according to population sparsity to address the specific needs of rural forces.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) highlighted regional organised crime units, and in many ways he touches on the important issue of collaboration. I had the pleasure of going to the east midlands special operations unit last year, and I saw how special operations come together and how collaboration can make an important difference. The Government strongly support that model of forces coming together in that way.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) highlighted a point about partnerships, and I am sure that police and crime commissioners will focus on that when considering how they apply the community safety fund and budget. Yes, there is still more to do, but we are confident that with a clear focus on making the necessary changes, the police will continue to provide the service that the public deserve, alongside delivering value for money for the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the work of the police in doing that, and to their success in cutting crime and keeping our community safe, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put,

Police Integrity

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My understanding is that that will indeed be part of the second part that will take place, but as my hon. Friend knows, there has always been a question about what can be done. A great deal was done by Lord Justice Leveson on issues that he needed to consider at the time of other police investigations. Of course, those police investigations are still continuing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the excellent statement from the Home Secretary not just because it implements Leveson, but because it accepts many of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee over a number of years. I share her ambitions for the College of Policing, and as she knows, Alex Marshall will be appearing before the Committee this afternoon.

Will the Home Secretary say whether police officers will still need to seek the permission of their individual chief constable before taking up a second job, and therefore before they are put on the register? Will she consider looking at police and crime commissioners? We still have no central register on which they can declare their outside interests, and since she is full of reforming zeal, in that same mode will she please ensure that that issue is also considered?

Points of Order

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rarely raise points of order, but this one is about a reply I received to a question I put to the Home Secretary, which was answered by the Minister for Immigration. I tabled a question asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited Romania and Bulgaria, and how many meetings she has had with Romanian and Bulgarian Ministers on the subject of immigration—a fairly standard question. Over the past 26 years, I have tabled questions to Ministers asking about their visits to other countries and have always received a factual reply. On this occasion, however, I received a reply stating that Home Office Ministers have meetings with a number of partners, but ending with these words:

“As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 123W.]

I have served in government and since receiving that answer I have talked with others who have served, and none has said that they refused to disclose a meeting between a Minister in this country and a Minister in a foreign country. I have friends in the Romanian and Bulgarian Parliaments and I can ask them to table questions asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited, but this is the bread and butter of the work of Members of Parliament.

There is a question about whether Parliament has been misled, even inadvertently, by the answer given. I like the Minister for Immigration and I am sure that he would not have done that deliberately, but we should be able to ask Ministers how many times they have been to foreign countries and about the overall nature of discussions. We do not want to know what the Home Secretary did in Bucharest, whom she met or what she discussed; we just want to know how many times she has visited Romania and Bulgaria. That is a simple question to answer and it is one that every other Government Department is able to deal with. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on whether the answer is in order, or whether this is a new practice.

[Mr Speaker]

The response the right hon. Gentleman received has clearly provoked his curiosity and, in a notably mild-mannered Member of the House, a degree of consternation. I will happily offer a statement on the matter, but as the Home Secretary has courteously remained in the Chamber during the point of order relating to her Department, she is very welcome to offer a remark, if she so wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth remembering that eight other European countries, including France and Germany, currently have transitional controls, as we do. They will have to remove those controls at the end of the year, which is partly why making a forecast is so difficult and why the Migration Advisory Committee advised against it.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

There is a Bulgarian word for the position in which the Government find themselves—oburkvane: confused. The Prime Minister is a champion of enlargement, which means the free movement of people, yet the Home Office was considering putting advertisements in the Romanian and Bulgarian press advising people not to come here. There is a simple way of dealing with this matter. First, by working with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments to find out the cause for people to move here. Secondly, by commissioning research so that we have proper predictions as to how many people will come here.

[Mr Harper]

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he has been in this House long enough to know not to believe everything he reads in newspapers when they talk about what the Government might or might not do. He may even occasionally have been the author of some such stories himself. [Interruption.] No, I am not. On his second question about working with our European partners, we will of course work with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments, as we do on a number of important and serious issues. For example, we work closely with the Bulgarians on combating terrorism. We will continue to take that approach and we will look at ways of making sure that this country is not a soft touch when it comes to benefits and access to public services. The MAC advised against trying to forecast the numbers, because it said that that simply would not be helpful to policy makers.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting on the valuable and important work that SOCA does around the world. The international network will continue to be maintained. There may obviously be changes over time, depending on requirements and where the intelligence leads us, but it is intended that the international network, which is widely respected because it does such good work, will continue under the National Crime Agency.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I support the restructuring of the landscape of policing but I am a bit concerned about the budgets. When the head of the National Crime Agency gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee he said that the agency would have a budget of £400 million. As the Secretary of State knows, SOCA’s last budget was £400 million, and that of the National Policing Improvement Agency £392 million. The difference is £400 million. Where will the additional money from the merging of those two organisations end up?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that not all parts that were under the NPIA are going into the NCA. Other sections of the NPIA are effectively going into parts of other organisations—some will come to the Home Office; the College of Policing that we have set up will look at standards and training. It is not possible simply to take the two budgets, add them together and say, “Where is the money going?” The money for the National Crime Agency will come from the precursor agencies, but as for other bodies, we will obviously have to look carefully at its budget at a time when forces and others are having to take cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that the victims are comfortable with going through the restorative justice process. The figures show that around 85% of victims who participate are satisfied with the response, but it is important that no victim should feel that restorative justice is being in any sense imposed on them. It must be something that they are willing to go through—he is indeed right about that. Restorative justice can also support rehabilitation by helping offenders to realise the consequences of their wrongdoing. This provision will help to put victims at the heart of justice.

At the same time, we are strengthening the ability of the Courts Service to exchange information with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, so that the courts have the income and benefits data they need to set fines at a level that properly reflects the means of the offender and supports the enforcement of those fines. We are also making it clear that the courts can take account of an offender’s assets when determining the level of a fine, which will ensure that criminals who seek to disguise their wealth are made to pay their dues.

Finally, the provisions in part 2 will bring the judiciary into this century by ensuring that it reflects the communities it serves. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has been slow. Just over one in five judges in our courts are female, and the proportion of black and ethnic minority judges hovers at around just 5%. We need to do better, particularly at the upper echelons of the judiciary. The Bill therefore includes a number of provisions to encourage progress in this area, including provision for part-time and flexible working in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are providing that where there are two candidates of equal merit, preference may be given to a candidate from an under-represented group.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. I warmly support what she is proposing. Some of us have been campaigning on the issue for a number of years. I think this will have an effect and will change the nature of the judiciary in this country. I hope, however, that one other issue will also be followed up. I see the Lord Chancellor sitting next to the Home Secretary, and I want to raise the issue of feedback. When in the past ethnic minority and women candidates have applied and been turned down, they have not received effective feedback on how to develop their career in the judiciary. It is not just about changing the law; it is about changing the practices of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that people have this information.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises what I think is an important point, and I can assure him that the Lord Chancellor has heard what he said, and will reflect on those comments and look into that particular issue.

As we bring our courts into the 21st century, our laws must follow suit. Part 3 provides—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has made some big promises about the Bill today. She has said that it will transform the fight against organised crime—indeed, to hear her speak one would think that there was no fight against organised crime before the Bill was drawn up—and that it would solve the problem of economic crime, transform punishment and rehabilitation, stop illegal immigration, and save money, all at the same time. One might think that this Bill alone would persuade all dangerous criminals to stop in their tracks and embark on a life of charity work.

You will forgive Labour Members, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we express a bit of scepticism about the claims that the Home Secretary has made—although we support many of the measures in the Bill—because we have heard such promises about her legislation from her before. When she stood before us to present one Home Office measure, she told us:

“With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]

That “strong democratic mandate” turned out to be 15% of the public voting and 3.6% voting Conservative. Introducing the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, she promised that

“public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

As a result of those measures, terror suspect Ibrahim Magag is now on the run, and unless the Home Secretary has any more information with which to update the House, we must assume that she, and we, still have no idea where he is. He was last seen getting into a black cab.

The Home Secretary told us:

“it’s clear… that we can improve the visibility and availability of the police to the public.”

She also said that

“lower budgets do not automatically have to mean lower police numbers”.

The result has been 15,000 fewer police officers, and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has concluded that the police are less visible and less available too. So we start with a certain caution about the promises that the Home Secretary has made. The Bill does not live up to the billing that she has given it. Even when the intentions are good, there are areas in which the detail does not stack up, and Labour Members believe that she is still missing an opportunity to change course on some of the wider policies that are making it harder for the police to keep the public safe.

Parts of the Bill are very valuable. We believe that more can and should be done to strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime, and that more can and should be done to introduce greater diversity into the judiciary. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made about that. We also support stronger action against drug-driving. People who drive dangerously, and even kill and maim, on our roads because they have taken illegal drugs and cannot control their cars should be caught and prosecuted. We also think it right for gang injunctions to be imposed by the youth courts; and it is certainly about time we did away with the offence of scandalising the judiciary. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) will comment on many of those justice issues when she responds to the debate.

Let me say a little more about the central reforms in the Bill. The central measure is intended to strengthen the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to rename it. In fact, the vast majority of the National Crime Agency’s work will be what SOCA does now. We agree that SOCA should be strengthened: it has done very important work, but given the changing patterns of national and international crime, it should have more powers and scope. The valuable work that it has done so far, which the Home Affairs Committee has looked at, includes achieving a conviction rate of more than 90%, and bringing to justice people involved in the organising of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, slavery and cybercrime. However, the police need to do more in certain key areas in which action by individual forces alone is not sufficient, including serious organised crime—which can cost up to £40 billion a year—and people trafficking. The number of international and cross-border crimes has been growing. Economic crimes cost an estimated £38 billion a year, and new offences such as cybercrime are becoming increasingly complex to handle.

[Keith Vaz]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worrying things about SOCA, despite its success in many respects, was that it seized less than it cost overall? It is important not just to create organisations such as the National Crime Agency, but to benchmark them to ensure that they meet the expectations of the public and Parliament.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Evidence given to his Home Affairs Committee by the new head of the National Crime Agency suggested that it did not necessarily expect to increase the amount that it seized, so we shall want to monitor its work closely. As my right hon. Friend says, it is likely that more action will be expected. We think that more can be done overall by all police forces, particularly in regard to matters such as the proceeds of crime and child exploitation. The recent Savile case shows quite how much needs to done throughout society to increase protection and prevention.

We agree that more action is needed in each of those areas, and the Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that more action is taken, but if we look at each area in turn it is not clear to us that the Home Secretary’s proposed measures will be sufficient. She has said, for example, that the National Crime Agency will be able to do more to deal with international crime, but in fact its hands will be tied. She wants to pull out of European co-operation on justice and home affairs. She is keen to opt out of the European arrest warrant, and wants to ditch the sharing of data with other European police officers on sex offenders who travel across borders. The arrest warrant has been used to bring back 39 people suspected of serious child sex offences, 65 people suspected of drug trafficking and money laundering, and 10 people suspected of human trafficking. Those are the very criminals whom the National Crime Agency is supposed to pursue.

It would be helpful if the Home Secretary, or the Minister who responds to the debate, told us how many of the police officers and crime experts who are currently working on international and cross-border crime support the plans to opt out of European co-operation, and how many of them think that the work of the National Crime Agency will be easier or harder if the Government opt out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

My point is this: the establishment of the police and crime commissioners is a matter of party controversy, and we will see whether they are embedded or whether there is some change. In any event there has been an increasing focus on giving local people greater say over local policing, and I strongly support that, but it means that national and international priorities—the threats that lead to quite a lot of local crime—could be marginalised. That is why there is a powerful case for a National Crime Agency and the kind of powers of direction that are inherent there. As I say, we have to go a stage further and accept that there will be two levels of policing—a national police service and the local police services—and ultimately the national police service, the National Crime Agency, will have the power to direct the local police services to ensure that national priorities are met.

On the reform of the courts, I welcome the unification of the county courts, which makes complete sense. I particularly warmly welcome the establishment of a single family court. That arises from the review of family justice under David Norgrove, which I established with support from the then Opposition. I am really pleased that, thanks not least to Mr Norgrove’s great acuity and sensitivity about the way in which the system needs to reformed and further changed, it looks as though the review will have important and beneficial consequences.

I changed the law on self-defence back in 2008. I understand why the Justice Secretary was faced with a blank in his proposed speech to party conference and thought he needed to say something on this issue. I doubt very much whether it will make any difference at all, because the practice and the law have already changed satisfactorily, but I certainly will not oppose the measure and I do not think my right hon. Friends will either.

The next issue is the right of appeal on applications for visitor visas. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look again at the arguments that have been advanced to them by Home Office officials. No one—I say this without any levity at all—has greater affection for Home Office officials than do I. I went to great lengths in my memoirs—available in all good bookshops—to defend and to celebrate officialdom, not least in the Home Office. I never sought to blame officials when it is Ministers who set policy and implement it. However, the truth is—I may give away a secret, but too bad—that it is inconvenient for there to be a right of appeal in visitor cases. There was a lot of resistance to it when I introduced the right of appeal in 1998, and I can disclose that throughout the rest of my ministerial career, about once every two years there was a proposal from other Ministers, once I had left the Home Office, to abolish the right of visitor appeal. I blocked it, whatever position I was in. That is why it survived.

[Keith Vaz]

Another secret missing from my right hon. Friend’s memoirs is the fact that when I was entry clearance Minister he was one of my biggest customers. The important point about that is that the element of discretion—the need to look again at the decision—is absolutely vital, whether it is a Minister saying that they will overturn the decision or whether it goes to appeal. With the reluctance of immigration Ministers to exercise discretion, it is vital that people get the chance to look again.

[Mr Straw]

My book is being reprinted, I am pleased to say, but when there is a revised edition I will add that. The truth is that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). He has obviously campaigned hard on that issue and I commend him for his efforts. I am glad that the measure will be contained in this legislation.

Earlier today, the Home Affairs Committee held a conference to launch our new inquiry into leadership and standards in the police. I am pleased to see three members of the Committee here this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). We listened carefully to some of the leaders of our police service, including Hugh Orde, Bernard Hogan-Howe and the new chief executive of the college of policing, as well as leaders from abroad, such as the commissioner who heads the Royal Canadian mounted police and the former president of Interpol. It is clear that in order to get effective leadership, there must be effective structures. I am therefore glad that, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, we at last have a body for the head of the NCA, who was appointed 15 months ago.

At that conference, it was interesting to hear the acceptance from all sides of the police service of the need for the Government, the Opposition and those in the police service to sit together and talk about the future of policing. With the Bill, we have an opportunity to streamline a number of the structures that have operated in policing for a number of years. The Labour Government can be praised for the resources that they gave the police, but we would be the first to admit that we did not really spend the necessary time examining the structures and ensuring they were fit for purpose.

What the Government have proposed is a revolution in policing—the abolition of SOCA and the National Policing Improvement Agency, the creation of the College of Policing and police and crime commissioners, and the abolition of police authorities. When on taking office the Home Secretary announced the changes, she talked about uncluttering the landscape. We will probably have more organisations rather than fewer at the end of the process, but I would be the first to accept them if they were fit for purpose, acted upon Parliament wanted and did the job effectively.

My first concern about the new landscape is that it is not complete. We thought that by now we would have a Constable—perhaps “Dedham Vale”—but instead we have the tail-end of a “Guernica”. The good intentions are there, but it is not complete. I thought that after two years, we would have the end of the landscape and the jigsaw would have been completed, but it has not. I urge Ministers to come rapidly to a conclusion about how the landscape will look in the end. The Home Affairs Committee, including its members who are in their places, has scrutinised and monitored what the Government have been doing, but we cannot decide on the structures. That has to be up to the Government. All that the House and the Committee can do is scrutinise and monitor what the Government are doing and give our recommendations on whether the system will work.

We need a conclusion on whether responsibility for counter-terrorism will remain with the Met or form part of the National Crime Agency. Why? Because we were promised a review of that at the end of the Olympics. The Home Secretary specifically said that she would not make a decision until the Olympics were over. I urge the Government to make progress, because it is not in the Met’s interests, and certainly not in the interests of Keith Bristow and his new colleagues at the NCA, that they should delay.

Like the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I would probably be minded to move responsibility for counter-terrorism into the NCA. It would fit well there, as the NCA will be a national organisation dealing with national and international issues. However, I know that there is resistance to that from the Met. I have discussed it with a number of officers, who feel strongly that responsibility should stay with the Met, because it has within it the expertise needed to deal with the matter.

It is also important that we know the name of the new chair of the College of Policing. Perhaps the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will tell us that. It has a chief executive, and we heard from him today. He has ambitious plans for what he hopes will eventually be a royal college of policing. Professionalism is vital to the future of our police service, but it is also important that the Government get on and appoint the chair. I know that someone was recently nominated, but that person has not been appointed, for a variety of reasons. If there is a shortlist of additional candidates, I urge the Minister to interview them, as I think he will be doing this week, and then let the Home Affairs Committee have the name of whoever is going to be in charge of the organisation, which is vital for the future of this country’s police service.

It is also important that we deal with the issue of appeals. I do not know whether the Minister will remember this, but when he was Minister for Immigration, he promised in a debate in the House a meeting with myself and colleagues who had an interest in immigration. Actually, I think I put it to the Home Secretary that she should meet us, but she passed it on to him. He, of course, has now left the post, and I hope he will pass the message on to the current Minister for Immigration.

Those of us who deal with a lot of immigration cases want the issue of appeals dealt with. That is not just Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in his place, and I reckon that he has many immigration cases at his surgery on a Friday evening. The last thing he wants is for us to be in limbo, having to ask people to apply again because there is no right of appeal for family visitors.

I put to Ministers a simple solution. I know that things have to change. I do not accept that there is abuse in the system, but it is a lengthy system and I know that they want to save money. I and others have suggested in the past that we have an administrative review of the decisions made by entry clearance officers. New evidence necessary to ensure that a case can be dealt with satisfactorily could go to somebody in a hub in London—it is quite possible for cases to be reviewed in London. I say to Ministers that the change will affect the settled British community, the diasporas that the Prime Minister and other Ministers feel strongly about bringing on-side. Unless we do something about the problem, British citizens trying to get relatives over for weddings and other family events will suffer.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always a pleasure to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about these issues. There is a problem when more information is required in a case, and I understand the Government’s advice that people should reapply. Would not an alternative approach be for entry clearance officers to be able to specify what extra information they would like and make a decision once they have received it? I have seen a number of cases in which they asked to see specific documents part-way through the process.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree, and my biggest regret from when I was the Minister responsible for entry clearance 10 years ago is that I did not introduce that approach. I left it to the system, and I was wrong to do so. If we had a system that allowed new information to be accepted, we would be able to save the taxpayer a huge amount of money and save those who are seeking to bring people into this country a lot of anguish.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the motivation for the change is financial, another option may be to increase the fee payable for appeals? I understand that would put some people off and might significantly reduce the number of appeals, but the possibility of entry clearance officers’ decisions being reviewed by a judge might help to ensure that decisions are made better than if the right of appeal is removed.

[Keith Vaz]

That is an option. I would not be enthusiastic about putting up fees, but people do not mind paying fees if they get results and cases are dealt with quickly. If that can be guaranteed, it is certainly an option. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention and that of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have shown us that it is quite possible to put forward alternative measures to abolishing the right of appeal. I hope that the Government will consider them.

I wish to say a couple of things about the parts of the Bill that I welcome. One is the establishment of the forum bar, which the Home Affairs Committee recommended when we examined extradition. Following the whole Gary McKinnon saga and the marvellous work of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who campaigned so passionately for his constituent, we put forward the idea of the forum bar, and now it will legislated for. We are delighted about that.

I am less delighted by the Home Secretary’s wish to give all the rest of her extradition powers to High Court judges. If we have Ministers, we should allow them to make decisions. I am not sure why people wait so long for ministerial office, then get there and want to hand all their powers over to judges. I actually think it is a good idea that Members of Parliament and others should be able to make representations to Ministers if there are exceptional cases. That will not be the norm—Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer’s cases were not the norm. They were exceptional cases that got to the Home Secretary’s attention only because of the work of people such as Janis Sharp, Gary McKinnon’s mother; the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate; and Richard O’Dwyer and his mother Julia. They were able to bring those cases to Parliament’s attention, and we should ensure that Ministers keep those powers rather than give them away.

I have been watching how the hon. Member for Croydon Central has pursued the campaign concerning drug offences when people are driving. Given the circumstances of his constituent, it must be a great relief to him and his faith in parliamentary democracy that a case he has raised so frequently in meetings with Ministers over the past year or so has ended in the fruition of a clause in a Bill that will change the law. What satisfaction it must give him as a constituency MP to know that he, along with other Members, has been a part of changing the law. I welcome what the Government are doing, and they are quite right to ensure that that change takes place.

I was never a great fan of the Judicial Appointments Commission introduced by the previous Government. Perhaps because both Lord Chancellors under whom I served—the noble Lord Irvine and the noble Lord Falconer—were, in my view, exceptional people, I thought that they could make better decisions about the diversity of the judiciary than a quango. I was right: they would have made better decisions and the judiciary would today have been quite different. I welcome what the Government are doing; it is a message to those who make such decisions that the judiciary needs to look not as Parliament did when I was first elected but as how it is today—Parliament looks like the country and so must the judiciary. Obviously, people must pass the merit test. Nobody wants jobs given away because someone happens to like the person sitting in front of them, or because they are a particular gender or race. Jobs are given to people who are qualified and able to do them effectively.

I will end with a comment made earlier today by Lord Wasserman, the Government adviser on some of the policing reforms. As the House knows, the Home Affairs Committee has been trying to get Lord Wasserman to appear before it, and he came before the Committee today as part of our international conference. He spoke most eloquently and I was quite taken by his comments. He suggested that the Government look at how police and crime commissioners have operated, and that the Committee hold an inquiry into that at the end of the year—obviously, the Committee will decide whether it wants to do that. The Minister has escaped; he has got political asylum from immigration and gone to policing. He survived the little problem of a few years ago, when I understand from The Sunday Times he ended up in the Cherwell. I did not see the Attorney-General in the Chamber making up with him; he was here earlier, but he is not present at the moment.

The Minister has one of the most exciting jobs in government: the chance to finish off the new landscape of policing. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) enjoyed being policing Minister, but the way to really enjoy the job is to ensure the jigsaw is completed and that we get a police service that fits the structure. We have the best police service in the world. Let us ensure that the organisations that are there to serve it really work.

Ibrahim Magag

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the security Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—for contacting me about this matter on new year’s eve. May I briefly express two concerns? First, it has been alleged that Magag was forging passports while he was in the camp in Somalia. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the police have his passport so that he is not able to travel abroad? Secondly, will she personally review the arrangements for the other nine people who are subject to TPIMs, in order to be satisfied that they are all in place and are secure?

[Mrs May]

The issue of the passport has not been discussed openly in public, but given the right hon. Gentleman’s position I shall be happy to talk to him about it on Privy Council terms. As for his second question, when one TPIM subject absconds, the agencies take appropriate steps to look at other TPIM subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

What I accept is that what we have seen in the Met and in most forces across England and Wales is that they have dealt with budget cuts. We have seen some reductions in the number of police officers, but crucially crime has been falling. Visibility, accessibility and confidence in policing are not about certain types of building. They are about police being available to people, and that is exactly what the Met intends to do. It intends to put more constables on the beat and increase their visibility by enabling people to access the police in places such as supermarkets.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

There are currently 30 Metropolitan police officers assigned to Operation Alice, dealing with issues relating to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Another 30 officers are assigned to Yewtree and 170 are dealing with Tuleta, Weeting and Elveden. As well as that, an unnamed number of officers are searching for Ibrahim Magag who went missing just before Christmas. Is the Home Secretary confident that the Metropolitan police have sufficient resources to deal with the bread and butter issues of London, bearing in mind the burden of all these specialist operations?

[Mrs May]

Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Metropolitan police receive extra funding for the fact that they are the capital city police force. I have every confidence in the Metropolitan police in all the operations that they are undertaking. The number of officers deployed to each of the operations that the right hon. Gentleman referred to is a matter for the commissioner and his officers.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, known as Ansaru, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 11th proscription order under that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation

“is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism”—

including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or—

“(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in dealing with counter-terrorism matters. I had not realised the Immigration Minister was now going to be responsible for counter-terrorism within the Home Office, but I am glad he has got this portfolio as well. Is there any indication as to how many supporters Ansaru has in the UK?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, may be pleased or disappointed to know that I am handling this order, but my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, retains responsibility for security matters. He is out of the country today on Government business, so I am dealing with the order on his behalf.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the question he asks. There are things I am not able to say in the House, based on intelligence issues. If he will forgive me, I would prefer not to answer his question directly.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation concerned. That includes open-source material, intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Ansaru is concerned in terrorism. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into detail, but I can provide a brief summary. Ansaru is an Islamist terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, which publicly emerged in January 2012. It is motivated by an anti-Nigerian Government and an anti-Western agenda, and is broadly aligned with al-Qaeda. It is believed to be responsible for the murders of British national, Christopher McManus, and his Italian co-worker. Franco Lamolinara, in March 2012.

In conclusion, for these reasons I believe it is right that we add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I fully support the motion that the Government have put before the House today. One of the features of the fight against terrorism is that the Front-Bench teams unite as they have today in supporting what the Home Secretary proposes.

We must, of course, give the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt. I am sure she has looked at this case very carefully indeed. I am certain that she, like previous Home Secretaries, does not take lightly the decision to proscribe an organisation. However, I want to raise a number of concerns that I have raised in the past, and that the Select Committee has raised, that have not been really been answered by the Government. I am glad to see here the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is also a member of the Select Committee and who played a leading part in producing the report that we published at the end of last year on the roots of radicalism.

Of course it is right that when the Government have the evidence, and the security services and others give advice to the Home Secretary, they should initiate a ban. Despite the fact that we have had successive orders on the Floor of the House that have gone through relatively quickly because of the support of the Opposition, the concern expressed by the Select Committee, which has not really been answered, is that the orders are not time-limited. Once the proscription is put in place, there is no revisiting it unless there is an application by the group concerned to get itself de-proscribed.

In the time that I have been in the House, there has been only one example of a group being de-proscribed. That was the People’s Mujahedeen, which in the end had to go to court in order to get the proscription lifted by the then Government. The concerns that I have raised have been raised with me and with the Home Affairs Committee by a number of groups including, for example, members of the Tamil community, who were concerned at the banning of the LTTE, an organisation that no longer exists, whose leaders have been executed or dissipated. It does not function, yet that proscription remains in force. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have members of the Tamil community in their constituencies and they have raised this concern. That is why it is important that the Government should take a view on the matter.

Whenever Ministers have come to the House before to talk about proscribing organisations—in this case, Ansaru—we have raised the point but we have never received a response with a definitive answer. David Anderson, QC, the reviewer of counter-terrorism appointed by the Government, has favoured a time limit. In Australia there is a time limit of two years. There should perhaps be not an automatic de-proscription, but at least the opportunity for senior Home Office officials to review the decision and to see whether the organisation has changed. One of the points that was made to the Home Secretary the last time she used proscription against an organisation—I think it was Muslims Against Crusades— was that organisations can change their name, but still function. By changing their name, they become, in a sense, a new organisation.

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about Hizb ut-Tahrir are relevant. I know the Prime Minister is very keen to ban this organisation. He has said so as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister, but he has come up against advice that has been given, presumably, by those who give advice whose names we do not know —obviously, because by the nature of their job they have to operate in the shadows. They have clearly said to the Home Secretary that in respect of Hizb ut-Tahrir there is no case to proscribe, but that there is in respect of Ansaru.

We in the House probably know more about Hizb ut-Tahrir than we do about Ansaru. Many of us, myself included, probably discovered this organisation only when we knew that a proscription order was going to be issued on the Floor of the House today. In the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we know what its members are up to, we know about their activities, we know what they have said, but still they are not proscribed.

It may seem odd that Members are asking for more proscription and at the same time are asking for time limits, but when an organisation ceases to exist and members of settled communities, though not members of that organisation, are loosely associated because they come from the same geographical area, such as members of the Tamil community who are settled in this country, obviously there are concerns.

I hope that when the Minister replies, he will at least give us some indication—I appreciate that this is not his area of responsibility—when we will know that the Government have made up their mind in respect of the response to the Select Committee’s report published a year ago. That will assist us, as I am sure it will assist David Anderson, QC, in our deliberations on this very important subject. On the substance of the order, I fully support what the Government are doing today. I have faith in the Home Secretary’s judgment. I know that she would do this only if she felt that it was the right thing to do, and I hope the order will go through with the support of the whole House.

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The hon. Lady spoke on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank her for their support, as I thank the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for his support. This is always a difficult area, because as the hon. Lady said, there are things that the Government know which they are not able to share publicly. I am grateful for what she and the Chairman of the Select Committee said about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to that proscribed organisation, to invite support for it, to arrange a meeting in support of it or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member of that organisation. Proscribing Ansaru will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and—picking up the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—ensure that it cannot operate effectively in the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned de-proscription. Anyone who is proscribed can apply to the Home Secretary to be de-proscribed. If that application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that underpins proscription decisions.

The Chairman of the Select Committee also mentioned the report that David Anderson, QC, has recently produced and also the Select Committee’s report. The Government have carefully noted the comments that David Anderson made in his report about the de-proscription process and the Home Secretary will respond shortly to the report, so the right hon. Gentleman may not have too long to wait to find out the Government’s view.

[Keith Vaz]

I know that we have become used to the word “shortly”, but it may well have been used a year ago, when we were told that there would be a response shortly. Is that this year? Is it next year? [Interruption.]

[Mr Harper]

As my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary says, the waiting time is getting shorter. I will not put an exact date on it, because when I have done that in the past I have inevitably disappointed people. The right hon. Gentleman will clearly have less time to wait than he did when he heard a Minister say that last year.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned Boko Haram, which operates in Nigeria. For very sensible reasons, the Government do not comment on whether any group is under consideration for proscription, but we are deeply concerned about violence, whether terrorist or otherwise, in Nigeria. We remain committed to working closely with the Nigerian authorities to tackle the security situation in Nigeria. When the Prime Minister met President Jonathan in February this year, he re-affirmed our shared agenda. We have experience on counter-terrorism policy and various frameworks for dealing with it, and we work closely with our Nigerian colleagues to support them in any way we can in combating the security challenges that they face.

The hon. Lady mentioned Hizb ut-Tahrir. As she knows, that organisation is not proscribed in the United Kingdom. As I said, proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that an organisation is involved in terrorism, as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East suggested though, it remain an organisation about which the Government have significant concerns, and we continue to monitor its activities very closely.

The final issue that the Chairman of the Select Committee raised was organisations that change their name but not necessarily their activities. Section 3(6) of the Act allows the Home Secretary, by order, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation, and we keep the list of organisations under review, including consideration of whether they are operating under any alternative aliases.