Police Recorded Crime Statistics

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jenkin]

Our inquiry found that, for example, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, has continued to set targets. It is tempting in our political culture to set high-level and public targets, but I wonder whether the public believe the numbers anyway. It is the first law of science: as soon as one tries to measure something it changes its properties. That is what is happening in this case. Poor data integrity reflects the poor quality of leadership within the police, which the Home Secretary and the Minister here today have understood. That is why the Government have abolished national policing targets. It is for police forces and police and crime commissioners, including the Mayor of London in his equivalent role, to embrace and understand that and to believe it. That is a cultural change to which I hope this report is contributing. Otherwise, we are encouraging what amounts to institutional dishonesty about police recorded crime. What does that say about the police’s ability to comply with the core values of policing, including accountability, honesty and integrity? That is why PC James Patrick felt that it was his duty to speak out against what he found to be going on in his force.

Our report of course came on top of all the other controversies that have raised questions about the values and ethics of the police and their leadership. I will not list them all again now, but the whole question of leadership and values needs to be addressed. I yield to no one in my admiration and respect for so many police officers, chief constables and, indeed, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has had a distinguished career in public service and whose senior officers and force daily put themselves at risk in the line of duty. Yet those same officers have overseen a deeply cynical culture about the quality of leadership, honesty and integrity by presiding over such a thing. That is why we recommended that the Committee on Standards in Public Life conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the police’s compliance with the new code of ethics, in particular the role of leadership in promoting and sustaining those values.

I note that the CSPL will now investigate the public accountability structures of the police. I have to say that that is not quite the inquiry which Parliament, through my Committee’s report, has asked it to conduct. We recommended that the CSPL should conduct

“a wide-ranging inquiry into the police’s compliance with the new Code of Ethics; in particular the role of leadership in promoting and sustaining these values in the face of all the other pressures on the force.”

Accountability structures will not of themselves promote the right values in police leadership and in policing. Accountability depends upon effective leadership, which in turn depends upon leadership that is trusting and is trusted by its subordinates, and that in turn depends upon high levels of trust and integrity within the organisation. If the CSPL is to conduct its inquiry effectively, it cannot avoid the issue of ethics and integrity. I am somewhat mystified about why it is not prepared to confront that question directly and openly, even if Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is already looking at it. After all, CSPL stands for Committee for Standards in Public Life and its remit is ethics and standards. If it avoids the issue of ethics and standards in the police, it will achieve nothing except to mess with a highly charged political debate about whether police and crime commissioners should continue to exist, which does not seem to be so relevant to the remit of the CSPL. Our recommendation reflects our understanding of the need to challenge police operational leadership about how they promote and sustain the values set out in the new ethics code. I am encouraged by the engagement of the new College of Policing and of many chief police officers around the country, but the CSPL’s unique and independent perspective has more to offer.

Turning to whistleblowing, one of the most depressing and saddening parts of our inquiry was discovering how the Metropolitan police treated James Patrick, my constituent. I was not able to address that as fully as I will now, because an employment tribunal was pending. He withdrew from the process. He could not take any more; it had taken too heavy a toll on him and his family and he was forced to resign from the Metropolitan police. Acting as a whistleblower, PC Patrick tried to highlight serious concerns about police-recorded crime and the target culture. We are indebted to him for his courage in speaking out, in fulfilment of his duty to the highest standards of public service, despite intense pressures to the contrary. Paul Ford of the Police Federation told us that his organisation

“was dealing with a lot of stifled whistleblowers…We have lots of anecdotal information but, unfortunately, people are fearful of coming forward and raising concerns. That comes down to the whistleblowing aspect of the lack of protection for people, the peer pressure and the fear factor in terms of their future”.

I am pleased the Minister for Crime Prevention has told me that the Home Office is looking at a range of radical proposals to strengthen protection for whistleblowers in the police, but that has all come too late for my constituent. Nevertheless, I look forward to what the Minister will add in today’s debate.

Our inquiry, the evidence presented to the Select Committee and the reaction of the UK Statistics Authority, which withdrew its approval of the police recorded crime stats, vindicate Mr Patrick and his actions utterly and completely. As I quoted earlier, even the Metropolitan Police Commissioner agrees that

“there is clearly something that PC Patrick raises that we need to get to the bottom of.”

Despite that, I can only describe the treatment of my constituent James Patrick as shameful. By doing his duty and raising the issues, he showed the highest commitment to the core policing values, but as a result he became the victim of the most monstrous injustice. He was in effect hounded out of his job, following a long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain, which, I dare say, used and abused the disciplinary process to get rid of him. It does the police no credit that a whistleblower should be treated in such a way. He was, for example, accused of a conflict of interest for publishing a book about the misuse of police recorded crime statistics, even though the proceeds were paid to a police charity. In an LBC radio programme in December last year, Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that he would meet PC Patrick. He never did so.

Most shameful of all, the Police Federation saw fit to finance a libel action at the choice of a serving police officer against a former Cabinet Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but I could not persuade it to fund the legal expenses and representation of PC Patrick in the employment tribunal that he was due to appear before as part of his defence. I find that completely and utterly inexplicable, particularly after the Police Federation itself told us in evidence to our Committee how difficult things are for police whistleblowers in this country.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said so far in his excellent speech. Given what he has told us about the Police Federation, do we not need a proper trade union for police officers, which would defend individuals as he suggests, instead of having an organisation that is in effect half controlled by the Home Office, rather than by its members, whom it is supposed to serve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Bayley, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I never thought you were an hon. Member who was causing problems for our former Chief Whip. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on his excellent presentation this afternoon and his excellent work in leading us in the production of this first-class report. As Chairman, he does a great job generally and has done specifically with the report.

My police force in Bedfordshire is small, but I have the highest regard for our police and crime commissioner and our new chief constable who is doing good job in difficult circumstances with serious resource constraints. Some hon. Members may have seen the recent television broadcast about Bedfordshire police working at Luton police station. One could see that they are doing a good job and I have a particularly high regard for senior local officers. The police force has its problems and inevitably from time to time complaints come to me about face-to-face experiences, but that is in the nature of things. I hope that over time we can improve that, but more resources are fundamental.

The problem with targets, as we have heard this afternoon, is that they distort justice. My concern has always been that they distort in a particular way and away from the prosecution of crimes of violence and abuse, which are my main concerns about crime and those of most ordinary people. Most voters want crimes of violence and abuse to be sorted out first.

When I was a young man a long time ago, I was seriously concerned that sentences for crimes of violence seemed to be too weak and those for crime against property were much stronger. I thought the balance was wrong, but it was part of a culture, which may still be with us to some extent. In those days, the police would not investigate domestic violence. They just said, “It’s a domestic”, and tended to leave it for those involved to sort themselves out.

My wife was on the committee of Luton Women’s Aid and 40 years ago the first refuge was set up. I helped to move in the furniture, but I was warned not to be seen by women in the hostel because they were nervous of men, even relatively benign ones such as me. There was a feeling that crimes of violence, particularly against women and, as we now know, young people, were not taken seriously. Recent events have shown that there has almost been a conspiracy not to prosecute people who had done dreadful things to and with young people. I need not mention the towns where such things have happened, but the police and local politicians have had a wake-up call to take such things more seriously.

One problem with targets is that one wants quick wins that make the numbers go up, and that sometimes means crimes that are easier to prosecute, such as simple crimes of violence, driving offences and so on. Crimes of domestic violence, violence against the person, or abuse are more difficult. They might take more resource, but in my view, they are still more serious than crimes against property. Being in fear of one’s life or in danger of injury or violence comes uppermost in most people’s minds. They will live with other things, but not violence. We have seen, through the statistics, enormous variations in the numbers of prosecutions and crimes recorded across the country, showing that there is something profoundly wrong, and the report identifies that. There have been too few arrests, too few charges and too few prosecutions in crimes of violence, and particularly, in crimes of sexual violence, and the no-crime approach has been one reason for that. We must now, as a society and through Government, take greater steps to protect women and girls, and indeed, some men, so that they can walk safely and live safe lives, and not be in fear of constant violence or abuse.

I may be a Labour Member—we tend to have a more liberal view of such things—but I believe that rapists and sexual abusers should be put in prison, and where necessary, given long sentences, not just for revenge, punishment or even reform, but to protect society from them, if they are the sort of people who would repeat offences. More prison places and longer sentences, and so on, may be needed—indeed, it is rather surprising perhaps, but sometimes I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who takes a particularly strong line on these matters. If people do things that are wrong, they should be constrained by the law.

Again, when I was a child, which was a very long time ago, I used to play outside in the street—we used to disappear all day and come back late in the evening for our tea, and our parents did not worry about us. Parents cannot do that any more. It is shameful and tragic that society is now regarded as so dangerous that children cannot be allowed out unless somebody is keeping an eye on them. There is something wrong there, and I want to do what we can—through policing, through the law and through the justice system—to try at least to recreate that world where we lived safer lives. That means putting away some of the more dangerous people—the wife beaters, the child abusers, and so on—which means that we have to get the police focusing on those areas. Take away the statistics, the numbers, the counting of heads and the counting of how many people have been prosecuted, and let us look at the nature of crimes, and get Parliament, Government and local government to get the police to focus on the things that most concern human beings, which are crimes of violence and crimes of abuse.

That may need more resources, as I have said, but the pattern of prosecutions varies a lot across the country, and constantly, there is too much bias towards crimes against property rather than against the person. We have to shift the focus of the police, which may mean taking away the target culture altogether, and saying, “We want you to make sure that your society and your areas where you police become safe places for everybody to live in and not suffer the fear of violence on a daily basis.” I used to walk the mile from my house to the station, but I no longer do so because I do not want to walk home late at night because of the fear of attack. It may not happen. I could probably walk home 1,000 times and nothing would happen, but it might. When I was younger, that would not have been the case.

I finish by saying how much I support everything that the Committee Chairman has said. I hope very much that the Government will act on the report’s recommendations, and, in fact, go further on some of the points that he has made. Where the Government have not entirely accepted the recommendations, I hope that they will, in time, go on to accept the report in its entirety, and that we will see the return of a world where violence and the abuse of children is seriously reduced, and that we will live in a more civilised society in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I totally agree with the Chair of the Select Committee. Historically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, this crime was simply not taken seriously enough; it used to be described as “a domestic”. There has been welcome progress in the past 10 years and more—of that there is no doubt—but it remains a crime substantially hidden from history. Ensuring that we have an accurate picture, that we encourage victims to come forward, and that they are properly supported when they do is therefore of the highest importance.

Let me turn to the police recorded crime statistics. It was absolutely right to strip those statistics of their national statistics status—the gold standard—on the back of evidence heard by the Select Committee. Considering the substantial weight of evidence that has come forward of significant under-recording of crime, it would have been dangerous to let ourselves be drawn into the false sense of security that those statistics were providing. I therefore commend the considerable courage of PC James Patrick, who alerted the Chair of the Select Committee to his concerns and then appeared before the Committee so that its members could hear at first hand, from the sharp end, just what was happening. It heard very powerful evidence of—the Chair used these words earlier—cuffing, nodding and skewing. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) rightly acknowledged, PC Patrick was a brave man who exposed what was clearly wrong.

The ONS has raised a number of hypotheses, including some very similar to what PC Patrick said, as to why the police were recording crime incorrectly, including the idea that there were performance pressures associated with targets. The time has clearly come to move on from that old-style performance target regime.

In addition to what PC Patrick, the ONS and others have said, there was compelling evidence to the Select Committee from Dr Rodger Patrick, a former chief inspector of the West Midlands police service. He set out his research, which suggested that

“the perverse incentives embedded in quantitative performance management…encourage a range of ‘gaming’ behaviours that result in under-recording of crime.”

As the Chair of the Committee said, there have been other “incentives”, including the desire for promotion.

Let me turn to the crime survey for England and Wales. That was historically relied on as more accurate. However, we must recognise that the situation is far from ideal. It is true that the CSEW stats are based on interviews with adults about their experience of crime, regardless of whether or not it was reported to the police, but the CSEW stats cannot give us a detailed indication of crime trends at local level. We are missing that vital piece of the puzzle.

Additionally and very importantly, several crimes are not included in the statistics, and that ultimately skews our understanding of crime and where it is headed. For example, according to an ONS study released in July 2013, the number of fraud offences could total between 3.6 million and 3.8 million incidents of crime a year. However, most fraud offences in England and Wales are now referred to a central organisation, Action Fraud, rather than being logged by local forces. It is therefore believed that if bank and credit card fraud were included in the CSEW stats, the estimated number of annual offences would jump by almost 50%. When we listen to Government rhetoric on crime being at an all-time low, we must remember that the Government tend to pick and choose which crimes to pray in aid and which statistics to refer to, ignoring these very significant and growing areas of crime, which are not properly reflected in the statistics. That is both wrong and dangerous.

Professor Marian FitzGerald, a criminologist at the university of Kent, was absolutely right when she said to The Times in August 2014:

“Ministers were readily persuaded that the Crime Survey represented a gold standard for measuring crime when it started to show a continuous fall from the time Labour took office in 1997. Yet here we have an admission from its own results that crime is 50 per cent higher than the figure it claims.”

In addition, the CSEW does not cover a range of other things. It does not cover those living in group residences such as care homes, student halls of residence and prisons, or crimes against commercial or public sector bodies. The CSEW figures exclude murder and manslaughter because the victim is dead; figures on rape and other sex offences, which are calculated separately and differently because of their sensitive nature; and crimes, such as drug possession, that are considered victimless.

Both the Chair of the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East referred to no-criming. Another important issue identified by the Select Committee in its report was the prevalence of no-criming. In response to the

“damning indictment of police complacency, inertia and lack of leadership”,

the Select Committee recommended that the Home Office undertake a comprehensive analysis to explain the extraordinary disparities in no-crime rates for sexual offences across all police forces.

The gravity of the impact of no-criming should not be underestimated. Let us consider this example given by HMIC of a case that was no-crimed. A woman alleged rape by a man in a car after she changed her mind about having sex following a discussion about use of a condom. The rape was recorded as a crime. She reports that she did not run away because she was scared of being beaten up. There had been no violence or pinning down, although the woman said that her chest was sore and she had felt intimidated. The incident was no-crimed because the man said that he did not know that she did not consent to having sex, but there is no additional verifiable information to show that the victim had in fact given consent. That was “no crime”.

Let us imagine, first, the difficulty of coming forward to report a rape during which the woman was so afraid for her well-being that she felt powerless to do anything. Let us imagine then what happens if the authorities doubt her, in effect favouring the perpetrator, despite no evidence being given to disprove her allegations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East rightly praised the excellent work of Vera Baird in Northumbria. When the issue that he referred to was looked into as a consequence of her action, more than one in three rape allegation cases initially deemed to be no crime were reopened, following a review of 153 separate cases. An audit by HMIC identified that the force may have incorrectly no-crimed many of those cases. As a result of the action taken by Vera Baird, the chief constable ordered a review of all such reports going back three years, and a team of experienced officers have now checked 153 cases. In addition, 48 officers involved in the incorrect no-criming and failure to act have been warned that they may face disciplinary action as a result of the inquiry by the force.

Concern about this issue is all the greater today; statistics show a 29% increase in rape, and a worrying justice gap: in the last year on record, there was a fall of 28% in referrals for prosecution, and a fall of 14% in prosecutions.

On unreported crime, in its interim report released earlier this year, HMIC noted a “significant under-recording of crime”. Basing its comments on the assessment of 13 police forces, HMIC stated that up to 20% of crimes may be unrecorded. Only yesterday, I had the privilege of attending an event organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, at which I heard some heartbreaking cases of violence against shop workers, including the case of a man whose whole life was ruined as a consequence of being seriously assaulted at work. A survey by USDAW of its members revealed that one in five of those who had been assaulted did not report the incident, not least because they often lacked confidence that any action would be taken if they did.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about shop workers, having visited the USDAW meeting the other day. On the tube, there are now notices saying that if staff are abused, the perpetrators will be prosecuted. We ought to adopt that approach for everyone who is abused while doing their job.

[Jack Dromey]

I absolutely agree. It is important that people have confidence that if they report an assault, they will be taken seriously. The police may spell out a good reason why they cannot investigate, but it is critical that the victim has the right to appeal against that decision. There is disturbing evidence to suggest that a culture has been created in which people feel that except in very serious cases, violence against shop workers is not taken seriously. It is not surprising that shop workers who have been assaulted do not come forward as often as they should, as the USDAW survey showed.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that even abusive language can be terrifying and upsetting, particularly, for example, if it is used by a male against a female shop assistant? Does he agree that even that is not acceptable?

[Jack Dromey]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to make a general comment about the under-reporting of crime. The Conservative police and crime commissioner for Suffolk, Tim Passmore, has said that he would not be complacent about a drop in crime in Suffolk because in his assessment, half of all offences go unreported.

As we know from tragic experience over the past two to three years, the scale and obscenity of some crimes—including domestic violence, sexual offences and child abuse—have been hidden from history. I welcome the growing focus on those obscene crimes that are the legacy of history and that sadly persist to this day. When it comes to tackling child sexual exploitation—I say this with all respect to the Minister—I have no doubt whatever that the Government are taking the matter seriously, but it is the worst possible time to cut 16,000 police officers; demand is rapidly growing. In the West Midlands police, 10% of officers are working on nothing but historical and current CSE cases. In the words of the chief constable, that is the tip of the iceberg. The debate today reinforces the need to take action on sexual crime and crime against children. To do that, the police need determination and focus, but they also need the resources that will enable them to do their job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I have no wish to detract from the Committee’s work, which the Government welcomes. Anything that helps to improve the accuracy of figures is entirely laudable and correct. Who started what and when is a small point. This happened before my time in the Home Office, but my understanding is that the Home Secretary had discussions with HMIC at an early stage. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has made his point on the record.

HMIC’s final report, due to be published in the near future, will give an independent and comprehensive picture of overall crime recording quality and rates of compliance with recording standards across all 43 forces in England and Wales. The Home Secretary wrote to chief constables at the start of the year to emphasise that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. Since then, I have met a number of chief constables—including Chief Constable Jeff Farrar of Gwent, the national policing lead for crime recording, and chief constables from poorer performing forces—to reiterate the importance of that message and ensure that action is being taken. That is an example of the ministerial accountability that the Chairman of the Select Committee seeks.

The HMIC inspection has been one of the most comprehensive ever into police crime recording practices. To ensure that the issues that have been identified are addressed and that the improvements in recording that the ONS has already noted are sustained, HMIC’s new annual programme of all-force inspections will include a crime recording element. The work on that programme is currently in the planning stages, and more detail will be available as soon as possible.

To regain national statistics status for police recorded crime data, Home Office statisticians are working with colleagues in the ONS, HMIC and the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee to take forward the requirements proposed in the UK Statistics Authority’s assessment report. That is being done as a broad programme of work, with much of it led by the ONS. The Home Office is leading work with forces, so that it can better understand the quality of their crime figures, and it is supplying additional information and documentation on processes to the ONS. In particular, we have fulfilled the UKSA and PASC recommendation to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Home Office and the ONS in the production of police recorded crime statistics. That is set out in the ONS’s user guide to crime statistics. The ONS is working towards being in a position to apply for reassessment by the UKSA at the earliest opportunity next year, and I fully support the ONS in that aim.

As the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned in his introductory remarks, the Government is not convinced that the Committee’s proposed minimum rank for force crime registrars is needed, not least because not all registrars are police officers, and it is beyond HMIC’s statutory remit to set a minimum rank for registrars. All police forces are different, so a minimum rank would not be appropriate for all registrars, but it is vital that the status of crime registrars is enhanced and supported and that their decisions or reports are taken seriously by chief officers.

The Home Office guidelines, published in the Home Office counting rules, state that registrars should be independent of those responsible for performance and should report directly to the chief officer with responsibility for crime data. We consider that that should be the deputy chief constable, or equivalent. We believe that registrars should meet with or report regularly to the DCC and that those interactions should be evidenced. To better support the status of registrars, the College of Policing is developing a national training and accreditation programme, and I myself will speak at the annual force crime registrars conference next week.

Before the Committee’s hearings, a joint decision was made between the Home Office and national policing leads to develop more formal training for force crime registrars to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their role. The College of Policing has been commissioned to develop the national curriculum for the role profile for force crime registrars, with the aim of developing an internal national course for them by the end of the year. The course is expected to include provision for a form of national accreditation for registrars, with a requirement for routine reassessment. The college will work with forces to identify gaps in knowledge and any additional training requirements, and we will consider matters further once we see HMIC’s final inspection report.

Some senior police officers have publicly stated a desire for officers to be able to use discretion about deciding whether, and when, to record a crime. That is an important matter, as the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues will recognise. The Home Office counting rules state that

“a crime should be recorded as soon as the reporting officer is satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed”

and

“at the earliest opportunity that the system allows”.

To do anything else would be a clear breach of the counting rules.

The Home Office counting rules and the national crime recording standard require the recording of certain categories of crime, so that an accurate picture of crime in communities is presented. That is vital to ensure a consistent national picture. In particular, it is required for police-recorded crime figures to regain their national statistics status. The police have wide discretion in the choices that officers make in relation to the subsequent action, including being able to decide to take no action at all where that is in the public interest, but they must always first record the crime; making an administrative record of a criminal offence reported by a victim does not, and cannot, criminalise anyone. I make it very plain that that is what the Home Office expects of police officers up and down the country.

I turn now to targets, which a number of hon. Members have referred to this afternoon. A target-driven culture existed under the previous Government. I do not wish to make that a party point; the previous Government had targets for what were no doubt well-intentioned reasons, including to try to cut crime. However, as Members across the House have accepted, those central targets led to perverse and unwanted consequences, and therefore it is right that this Government abolished them. We have one target for police forces, which is to cut crime; that is the only target we are interested in.

To pick up on a comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), it is true that some police and crime commissioners have set targets locally; we think that about a third of PCCs have done so. Clearly, that is a matter for them, and they are accountable to their own electors. I would just caution them to be careful to ensure that they do not repeat the mistakes that occurred in the past with target setting.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister says that police forces should just cut crime, but I think that all Members who have spoken today have suggested that the emphasis should shift to ensure that the importance of crimes of violence and crimes of abuse is raised and that the police ought to be refocusing. It is the job of government to put that case to the police.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree with that comment; in fact, we are doing that. I will pick up on individual comments as I go through my remarks, including that point by the hon. Gentleman, which I agree with, as a matter of fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I know the Chairman of the Committee feels strongly about this matter; indeed, it was central to his Committee’s report, so it might be helpful if I put on record part of the letter I wrote to him on 4 April this year. I confirmed that if

“an officer is dissatisfied with the way their concerns have been dealt with by their force, or they do not feel comfortable raising their concerns with their force in the first place, they can raise their concerns directly with the Independent Police Complaints Commission…The IPCC runs a dedicated telephone hotline specifically for police officers and staff…Officers can raise their concerns with the IPCC anonymously or in confidence…We are looking at a range of possible options, including… anonymity for the whistleblower from the point at which the allegation is made…‘sealed’ investigations so that, for a set period, no-one under investigation knows that it is happening so as to preserve evidence and prevent collusion…immunity from disciplinary/misconduct proceedings or prosecution…financial incentives for whistleblowers, for example, a share of recovered criminal assets from the case…protection against vexatious or malicious allegations.”

Those options are under consideration. I mentioned that a consultation will start shortly, and it is open to my hon. Friend and his Committee to make representations accordingly.

Let me turn now to the issue of “no crimes” and sexual offences, which were mentioned by the Opposition spokesman and by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—I almost called him my hon. Friend because we have taken part in a number of debates over the years.

The overall “no crime” rate for rape has fallen year on year under this Government, from 12.6% in 2009-10 to 7.3% in 2013-14. It is encouraging that a number of forces have stated a determination to further bring down “no crime” rates for rape, and the HMIC rape monitoring group data provide PCCs and chief constables with core information to drive improvements in their response to rape.

The then Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—and I wrote to chief constables and PCCs in February, encouraging them to use the figures to improve the response to victims of rape, and we stressed that

“every allegation of rape should be recorded as a crime at the point it is reported, when it is reported without question or challenge.”

That will drive up some of the figures we are seeing.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member that a shift is taking place—the Government is encouraging this, but it is also where society is going—on what we might call crimes against the person. In the past, a lot of these crimes have not been taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman said domestic abuse behind closed doors was not a matter the police got involved in in the past, and that has to change. Clearly, there has been an issue with child sexual exploitation, which concerns everybody in the House, and society has to take it more seriously. Some police forces have also failed to deal properly with rape, and there is no point pretending otherwise. We have to sort these matters out, and we are making significant progress.

That work will lead to a change in the focus of the police. Fortunately, we are seeing a significant decline in what might be called traditional crimes, and we are seeing more reporting and more recording of them. However, I should make it plain that the reporting and recording of them is not the same thing as the number of incidents that occur—that is a different matter entirely. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the figures that came out today. In the police recorded crime figures, there is an 11% increase in violent crimes; in the crime survey for England Wales, there is a 23% decrease. Those figures are not wrong; they just mean that the police are now more accurately reporting and recording. That is what Members on both sides of the House are trying to get to, and it is a good thing.

We will, therefore, see more emphasis on these matters, and so we should. I want to leave Members in no doubt whatever that crimes such as domestic abuse, rape and child sexual exploitation, which is an abominable crime, are very high on my priority list, as well as that of the Government and, I believe, the House. That is reflected in what Ministers say; it is also increasingly reflected in what the police are doing, and they are recording these matters more sensibly and more accurately than they were; and it reflects where society is as well.

That will lead to an increase in reporting of historical offences, where people did not have the confidence to come forward before, and of offences that take place now, which people may not have wanted to report in the past, and which I hope they will have the confidence to report now. I encourage anyone who has been subjected to a crime of violence to report it to the police and make sure that they pursue that matter if they feel that the police are not taking it as seriously as they should. Violent offences such as rape are of course devastating crimes that ruin lives. We expect every report to be taken seriously, every crime to be recorded, every investigation to be conducted thoroughly and professionally, and every victim to be treated with dignity. We recognise that vulnerable victims are often unwilling or unable to go directly to the police. That is why it is vital that the police take crimes passed on to them by third parties seriously, and record them appropriately. Many victims will of course feel that they want to go to a non-statutory person in the voluntary sector, for example, to let them know about those matters, so the police need to take that into account in how they deal with the issues.

Last year, the prevalence of sexual assault recorded by the crime survey was the lowest ever since its introduction in 2004-05. Nationally, police recorded crime figures showed an increase of 21% in all sexual offences, and a 29% increase in recorded rape, so I think it is encouraging that more victims have the confidence to come forward. We know rape and sexual violence are under-reported crimes and want to correct that. We want more people to report to the police, and more cases to be brought to justice. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned the increase in rape, so I want to mention that rape prosecutions were up 5.3% in 2013-14 and rape convictions were up as well, so there is a helpful effect now coming through the court system.

Sexual offences are one of the six main crime types reviewed by HMIC as part of its audit of crime recording quality. The first tranche of the reports has been published, and the remaining force reports are expected to be published shortly. We want PCCs and chief constables to use the findings and figures to improve the way their force responds to rape and supports victims. It is encouraging that some forces have already announced reviews of earlier “no-crime” decisions following the HMIC reports. Vera Baird, the Northumbria police and crime commissioner, was mentioned in that regard in the debate. The new rape action plan, led by the Crown Prosecution Service and the national policing lead for rape, will aid the Government’s drive to ensure that every report of rape is treated seriously and every victim is given the help they deserve.

Whether the role and composition of the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee should be reviewed is a matter for that committee and the UK Statistics Authority. The Home Secretary values its advice and I spoke to the committee recently to stress the importance that the Government places on the ability to ensure that the public have accurate, reliable crime figures.

I want to pick up a few points made by hon. Members during the debate. I agree with the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) that the emphasis must be on core policing values. That is exactly right, and I also agree that we must deal with the under-reporting of sexual crimes, as I mentioned a moment ago. I think that the reason for it is, frankly, that in some cases the police have not been as sympathetic or treated those crimes as seriously as they might, or recorded them as they should have. Those matters are now being addressed, as I have suggested, and I think that the police are making good progress.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does the Minister agree that if there were more women in senior positions in the police and the justice system it might lead to even more rape cases being prosecuted successfully, and to a change of culture in those institutions?

[Norman Baker]

It is dangerous to assume that the only way to change the culture is to have women in key positions. The Home Secretary is a woman, and I have not noticed that effect. It is important to change men’s attitudes. That is how we will ultimately make progress—by changing the way men look at things.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the conflict—or the different messages coming out—given the decrease shown in the crime survey figures compared with police recorded crime. I hope that I have dealt with that matter. Police recorded crime is catching up with the crime survey by recording more accurately. That is the explanation—the divergence between them is now closing. That also explains, as I think I set out, why the figure for sexual offences is up.

The hon. Member for Luton North referred to his concern about crimes of violence. I agree with him about that, as I have said. He slipped in a suggestion that his party tends to have a more liberal view on home affairs matters. I have not noticed that in my time at the Home Office; liberal is not the word that I would use to describe the shadow Home Secretary and her team. However, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view; perhaps he is in the more liberal element of his party. I do not know.

I agree that we need a shift in policing. It may interest the House to know that I have established two panels with that in mind. One is a crime prevention panel, which is considering the steps that can be taken to reduce crime before it happens. That can involve a range of things, including designing crime out of buildings and some technological solutions. That panel of experts has some good ideas. There is also an horizon-scanning panel, considering where crime will be going in 10 to 15 years’ time, with experts from all parts of society, including young people. Their ability to suggest where online crime might go is much better than mine or the other panel members’. That has been a useful exercise and recommendations will be made shortly, which I am sure the House will be interested in. I mention that because it picks up the shift in crime, which relates to the shift in policing that will have to be made, in relation to crimes against the person. I think that it will be a greater priority for the police in the years ahead.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, was a little unhelpful in his description of the crime survey. He appeared to cast doubt on its value, calling it far from ideal. It is the same one that his party’s Government ran for 13 years. We have not changed it; any change that we are making is to strengthen it, to bring in some of the issues that he and other hon. Members mentioned. The crime survey is regarded throughout the world as the gold standard. It has been running since 1981, and it captures most crimes and enables trends over long periods of time to be discerned.