Prison Capacity

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I ask him to look at Durham police’s model—and I will add that, even with the uplift, Durham constabulary will still have 100 fewer officers than in 2010. The checkpoint scheme was launched by the late Ron Hogg when he was police and crime commissioner, and a University of Cambridge study found that, of the 2,660 offenders who went through it, only 6% reoffended, saving the taxpayer more than £2 million. I suggest that, for low-risk offenders, that is better than just putting them into prison. It has the academic work behind it that proves that it works. It needs now to be expanded elsewhere. I would welcome his coming to Durham to look at the scheme.

[Damian Hinds]

I will be honest: I was not familiar with that particular scheme. I imagine that, in the right hon. Gentleman’s usual fashion, he will ensure that I am fully versed in it by the time I am next at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to learning more.

Police Grant Report

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Having been, effectively, a police and crime commissioner in the past, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the removal of the distinction between capital and revenue receipts and spending would have been a blessed relief. In the old days of local government restrictions in that regard, in the police and in local authorities, there was an entire science devoted to the creation of capital as revenue and the conversion of revenue into capital, to get round the Treasury rules, but we have done away with that division now. [Interruption.] Of course, as a chartered accountant, I feel slightly bereft, having been put out of business. It was quite an art form, which was very satisfying to achieve.

However, the removal of that division means that a cheque goes to the police and crime commissioner, and along with the chief constable they may then decide on the division between capital and revenue as they wish. Having handled such budgets in the past, I think that is a very welcome development. I know, for example, that in Wales that has been used to great effect. In Dyfed-Powys the police and crime commissioner, on first coming into the role, made a huge investment in CCTV across the entire force area, which is paying enormous dividends, and he is able to do that as he wishes, capital and revenue being irrelevant. That is the kind of freedom that we want to give police and crime commissioners as they pursue their mission.

This is a crucial year for policing, particularly on the recruitment programme. The settlement is designed to ensure that we hit that important mark of 20,000 new officers. Forces have made outstanding progress to date, and that is testament to the hard work of all involved in the campaign. The recent statistical release of the police uplift programme demonstrates how many forces have already met, or in some cases exceeded, their year 2 target. PCCs are grabbing this investment with both hands and already a number of forces have more police officers on their books than they ever had before.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that Durham constabulary is an efficient force—it has been recognised as such—but since 2010 we have lost 325 police officers. Even with this funding, we will still be 153 short on where we would have been in 2020. How does he square that?

[Kit Malthouse]

By the time we get to the end of the uplift programme, there will be a large number of forces who are above the number of police officers that they had in 2010. That will be a function of decisions that were made by police and crime commissioners in the intervening decades.

[Mr Jones]

Nonsense.

[Kit Malthouse]

It absolutely is—they had to make often difficult decisions about finances. I was one of those police and crime commissioners, so I know that prioritising police numbers within that overall formula means that some have a better baseline from which to build than others. For example, in London, for which I was responsible, we made a strong case to the then Mayor, now the Prime Minister, that it was our job to prioritise police numbers. As a result, the baseline to build off the uplift programme means that the Metropolitan police now have the highest number of police officers they have ever had in their history, with more to come.

I cannot mitigate the financial decisions made by police and crime commissioners in Durham, the West Midlands or other forces, but, having said that, Durham will receive significant extra police officers in the third year. I hope that with the freedom and flexibility on extra funding that the police and crime commissioner will get through the precept will mean that they might well add to that number as well.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is not me saying that Durham is an efficient force. The inspectorate said that it is an “outstanding” force in that regard. It lost 325 officers. It will still be worse off by 153 officers by the end of the uplift, and the reason for that is the low precept in the council tax base in County Durham. Unless that is sorted out, the force will never be able to afford the Minister’s ambitions, unlike the Chancellor’s constituency, which will end up with 190 more police officers than it had in 2020.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am happy to continue the argument with the right hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber rather than occupying significant amounts of time on what is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

You are wrong.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I am not wrong. There are forces similar to Durham that will be in a better position. It has to be the case that financial decisions made by police and crime commissioners have an impact, otherwise what is the point of having them and on what basis did they stand for election? The Mayor and I stood for election in London on the basis that we absolutely wanted to maintain police numbers, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not going to continue the argument. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he goes back and looks at the manifestos that the police and crime commissioner in Durham produced in those elections and see whether they promised to prioritise police numbers or not, or whether all they did was whinge about Government funding. I am happy as a trade to take responsibility for the very difficult financial decisions that this Government had to take after the crash in 2007-08 and after our coming into government in 2010. I take responsibility for that—I absolutely do. Thank God we did as well, given what has happened to us subsequently. However, I will only do that if the right hon. Gentleman will take responsibility for the decisions of his police and crime commissioner in those intervening 10 years. I will move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s logic is right. Absolutely not. If they want to raise the contribution by less than £10, they can. There is no problem with that and the idea of there being an upper limit and a cap is a well-accepted feature of police funding. If a police and crime commissioner wants to raise the contribution by £5, £6 or £7 they can, and in fact if they do not want to spend it on police officer numbers they do not even have to do that. The right hon. Gentleman is making a rather poor argument, and I might say that the settlement has been greeted with pretty universal pleasure and a claim by police and crime commissioners from across the political divide, so I am not quite sure where this dissatisfaction is coming from.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I have to move on.

Police officers, whether new recruits or experienced hands with decades of service, perform a unique and vital role in our society. I must put on record how grateful I am—I know that all hon. Members are—to everyone in the policing family, including civilian staff and volunteers who work tirelessly day in, day out to keep our people safe from harm.

I return to recruitment. It is only right that the Government hold forces to account to ensure that they are delivering the outcomes that the public expect from this investment. The Government will therefore once again create a ringfenced grant to ensure that the success of the police uplift programme is maintained in the coming year. Forces will be allocated a share of the £135 million grant in line with their funding formula allocation. As in previous years, forces will be able to access the funding as they deliver progress on their recruitment targets.

As announced in the 2021 spending review, police and crime commissioners in England will have access to further flexibility around levels of police precept to make additional funding available for local matters for the next three years. The settlement allows PCCs in England to raise council tax contributions for local policing by up to £10 a year for a typical Band D household. If all police and crime commissioners decide to maximise that flexibility, the outcome will be a further £246 million of funding for local policing in the coming year. I must stress that—we have discussed this—council tax levels are a local decision, and I know that police and crime commissioners weigh carefully in the balance what their local people can afford and want to see from policing before they make that decision.

We are also enabling counter-terrorism policing to confront terrorism in all its forms. That is why, for the first time, funding for counter-terrorism policing will total over £1 billion. That significant funding will allow CT policing officers to continue their critical work, support ongoing investigations, and continue investment in the operations centre and in armed policing. In addition to the increase in Government grants and additional precept flexibility, I am delighted to announce that we are investing £1.4 billion to support national policing priorities that will benefit all police forces across England and Wales. That funding will help accelerate progress on key areas of Government focus including crime reduction and improvements to the service received by the public. Of that investment, £65 million will support policing capabilities specifically, including funding to drive improvements in local police performance; measuring responsiveness to 101 and 999 calls; and funding for a national crime laboratory to push the use of innovative data science techniques to prevent and reduce crime.

The Government recognise the need to maintain focus on cutting crime to make our communities safer. That is why we are also providing additional investment in regional organised crime units so that they are equipped with the capabilities they need to tackle serious and organised crime and to protect the most vulnerable citizens from abuse. We are committed to working with PCCs and other partners to tackle crime and make our streets safer. As announced at the 2021 spending review, we will provide investment in new projects to improve crime prevention as well as maintaining and enhancing existing programmes. Funding arrangements for specific crime reduction programmes will be confirmed in due course and will follow a matched funding principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the people who serve in our police service. It has not been an easy time: 10 years of cuts followed by covid has placed enormous strain on them. Thanks also go to the officers who work here to keep us safe and to those who acted with such bravery on Monday as an angry mob surrounded the Leader of the Opposition shouting claims made by the Prime Minister in this place last week. We must not, though, shy away from recent reports on some of the worrying misogynistic, racist and sexist culture and practice in policing that have shocked many of us and challenged police throughout the country to strive always for higher standards.

The police grant report comes at a difficult time for the country. Inflation is rising, energy prices are rising and taxes are rising. We have had a wasted decade of low growth, the challenges of covid and a Government who have wasted billions and billions on covid fraud and incompetent PPE contracts that never delivered. In April, tax goes up, and inflation is forecast to rise to 6% in the spring. The Government’s only answer is a buy now, pay later energy scheme that will not help those most in need or help the economy.

Because of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the additional funding in this year’s police grant will not go anywhere near as far as we need it to go. There has never been a more important time to invest in policing.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government announce increases in police funding, as the Minister has done today, they forget to tell people that the bulk of that funding will come from local council tax payers? The Government are continuing the policy of the past 11 years of moving the cost of police funding from central Government to local taxpayers.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend is completely right: a third of the extra funding now comes from the council tax precept. That is a very high proportion.

Total crime went up 14% over the past two years—contrary to what the Prime Minister said in this place last week, for which he has been criticised by the UK Statistics Authority. As we heard earlier in Prime Minister’s questions, there are 14,000 cases of fraud every day—although the Prime Minister and the Government do not count them as real crime. Arrests are down and prosecutions are at their lowest levels. Just one in 50 burglaries result in a charge and, shamefully, only 1.3% of reported rapes lead to a charge. Criminals are getting away with it.

A proper plan backed by proper investment has never been more important, yet we yet have a demoralised police workforce who have declared no confidence in the Home Secretary. Pay in real terms is lower than it was in 2010. Despite the uplift that has already taken place, the total police workforce has more than 17,000 fewer people in it than it had in 2010. The number of police leaving the service with mental health problems is high. Neighbourhood policing is decimated, with nearly 50% of police community support officers gone and police staff cut.

Only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 new police officers were deployed in neighbourhood roles. Police officers are backfilling vital police staff roles because forces do not have the budgets to pay the salaries of the number of police staff they need. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, despite the uplift many areas will still end up with fewer officers than they had in 2010. Merseyside will be 456 officers short and the West Midlands will be 1,000 officers short. This is the woeful context in which we debate the police grant.

The overriding sense I take from the police grant report is the total lack of any meaningful ambition to come even close to fixing some of the challenges we face, and the lack of any kind of vision or plan from the Home Office to tackle crime and its causes. It is a woeful attempt to make up for a decade of cuts by heaping the tax burden on to local council tax payers through the precept.

Budgets have started to increase, but they are not inflationary increases. We are not back to 2010 levels in real terms. Once money for new officers is counted out of the figures, direct funding to PCCs is rising by only 4.8% at a time when inflation is rising steeply and is predicted to reach 6% in the spring. That means the Tories’ failure to keep inflation down will hit day-to-day police budgets and the police’s ability to keep communities safe.

While police officers across the country recover from the pandemic, they will be paying higher national insurance and higher energy and petrol costs. Officers and staff will see less value in their income because of inflation. The Government are also demanding £80 million in efficiency savings on top of it all. Members should not just take my word for it; Gloucestershire’s Conservative PCC, Chris Nelson, has had to admit that his manifesto pledge to add 300 officers is “unachievable,” adding that he would be “jolly lucky” to achieve it.

In Merseyside, it is estimated that inflation will cost £2.3 million, the pay increase will cost £5 million and the national insurance increase will cost £2.3 million, while Merseyside police is making savings of £2.9 million. The additional precept income is being used to cover the cost of pay, price inflation and the national insurance levy. Earmarked reserves are being used to balance the budget in-year, and there is a potential long-term increase in expensive police officers sitting behind desks to cover crucial police staff roles.

With these kinds of pressures, how can arrests and prosecutions increase? How can the police tackle serious violence, violence against women and girls, drug addiction and all the other pressures with the strength we expect? That is Conservative Britain.

The Government expect more and more police funding to come from local taxpayers, but there is a gross inequality in this overreliance on the precept because it is the most deprived communities, those with the fewest band D properties, that will get the least. There should be no winners and losers when it comes to public safety.

Northumbria has the lowest band D precept, and just 18% of Northumbria police’s funding came from the precept in 2021-22, whereas Surrey police got 55% of its funding from the precept. Budget pressures will be even greater if PCCs are not able to bring in as much as the Government have projected from the council tax precept, as the £296 million increase depends on every PCC making full use of the flexibility to increase the precept. Even if they all do so, as we think they will all be forced into doing, it means more tax rises on local people during a cost of living crisis.

We are debating police funding, so we should return to the age-old question of when the Minister will finally get round to reforming the funding formula. This was vaguely promised by the Minister before the election but, if the Government wait until 2024, they will have spent nine years dithering while police forces have had to make massive efficiency savings and local taxpayers have had to pay the price. Is there any chance of news of progress today?

This settlement should be a real opportunity to recruit a more diverse police service that better reflects the communities it serves. The annual increase in the proportion of black and minority ethnic officers is 0.3 percentage points. At that rate, it will take 20 years to reach 14% black and minority ethnic officers, which is the make-up of the country, so much more needs to be done, so much more.

Only one in 20 crimes leads to prosecution. The “Beating Crime Plan”, whatever the Minister says, has no meat, no ideas and no strategy. It will not do to pretend that everything is okay with press releases that the UK Statistics Authority says

“presented the…figures in a misleading way.”

It will not do to claim that crime has fallen because of the “Beating Crime Plan”, when it has actually risen, and when certain crimes which reduced in number did so largely because of covid restrictions and are now on the rise again. It will not do to allow antisocial behaviour to blight people’s lives, serious violence to make a generation of young people fearful, and women and girls to continue to be the victims of violence and abuse.

We need a properly funded police service, an economy that functions and leadership from the Government. That is what the public expect. A Labour Government would put victims first and ensure that every neighbourhood where people are frightened and afraid has a new police hub and neighbourhood prevention teams, bringing together police, community support officers, youth workers and local authority staff. Labour’s record in government shows that, unlike this Government, we can be trusted on policing and crime. By the time we left government, there were 6 million fewer crimes than in 1997. It took us years to build up neighbourhood policing, and this Government are spending their years undoing that good work.

The Opposition will not vote against the plans, because some funding is better than no funding, despite the poor economic conditions that the Conservatives have created, which will mean that the money does not go anywhere near as far as we need. This Government, like the two Conservative Governments before them, are failing to deliver on crime. They are failing to bring down total crime, failing to deliver justice to victims, failing to rebuild neighbourhood policing and now failing to control the inflation hitting day-to-day police budgets. They should go back to the drawing board and try again: “Must do better.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by thanking the men and women of Durham police and the support staff for their commitment and dedication, particularly given the difficult time they have had over the last couple of years with the pandemic, and for their support during Storm Arwen recently. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Jo Farrell, the chief constable, for her effective leadership of a force which, despite what the Minister pushed to one side, has been continually rated as outstanding for its effectiveness and efficiency. I am sorry that the new police and crime commissioner did not see fit to brief MPs on the settlement, but that does not matter, because I have been making the same arguments about the budget for the past 11 years, and I possibly know the police budget better than many.

To listen to Ministers today, we would think that the election of the Government in 2019 was ground zero and that nothing happened before then, or that nothing that happened before then was their responsibility. Somehow it is not their fault that we in County Durham lost 325 experienced police officers or, for example, that Dorset, even after the much-vaunted 20,000 officers promise, will still have 70 police officers fewer than it had in 2010. This did not happen by accident; this happened because of the political decisions taken by successive Tory Governments since 2010. It is very interesting that the Minister said that the first duty of Government is to protect citizens and policing is a main part of that, but the main point is that the police funding budget was cut by some 16% over that period.

The other point—and this leads to the problem we have in Durham and, I think, in many forces, including Dorset—is the fact that policing was traditionally funded mainly by the central Government grant and the precept then made up the remainder. What has happened since 2010, and it continues in this latest settlement today, is that that central Government grant has been cut by 30%, which has basically pushed the cost of policing on to local council tax payers. The overall tax burden has gone up since 2014-15 by some 13% on local council tax payers. In some areas, it has gone up even more than that, and I will explain the reasons why in a minute.

The Minister has again peddled the same line today. The Government say that there will be x millions extra for policing, but what they never say is that the bulk of that will come not from central Government taxation, but from local council tax payers. The Minister then says that it is up to the local police and crime commissioner to decide whether to put up the council tax. No, they should read the actual policy. It assumes that the announced funding figure is based on all the councils putting it up to the maximum. Frankly, they do not have a choice in that if they want effective local policing.

All I ask of the Minister and of the Government is to be honest when they make these announcements. When they announce that the budget is going up this year by a certain number of hundred millions, why do they not split it out into what the Government are doing centrally and what increase the Government are asking local council tax payers to pay?

[Kit Malthouse]

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my speech, he would have heard me say specifically that £500-odd million was coming from the Government to PCCs, and that, if they all took their flexibility, £200-odd million was coming from the PCCs. I specifically enunciated in my speech what the balance was. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House, let me say that that does not indicate that the bulk of police funding is coming from the precept. It is quite the reverse: the bulk is coming from central taxation.

[Mr Jones]

I understand police funding, and I understand what the Government have been up to for the past 12 years. When the Minister—and he did this today—or the Prime Minister say that this Government are providing an extra certain amount of money for policing, why do they not put that caveat on it? They never do, because that is the sting in the tail. That has been happening continuously. It happens not just in policing, but in local government funding and in the funding for our fire and rescue services, so this creates a problem for local policing, local government and the fire and rescue service in County Durham. It has got to the point where our fire and rescue service will survive this year, but could actually fall over next year, because of the way in which this Government continue to push the emphasis onto the local council tax payer.

Why is this a particular problem for County Durham? The root of it is that 58% of the properties in County Durham are in council tax band A. In Wokingham, in Surrey, only 2.8% are in band A. So, if the precept for policing in County Durham is increased by 1%, it will raise £3.8 million, whereas in Surrey, it raises £8.9 million. Therefore, what we basically have with this policy, which is slowly pushing more and more funding onto local council tax payers, is that the poorest areas with the lowest council tax banding systems are the losers, while other, more affluent, areas are the gainers.

The Government have this slogan—they govern in slogans—that they will create another 20,000 new police officers, but, again, in County Durham, we have lost 325 officers since 2010. Even with the settlement today and the PCC putting the precept up to the maximum, we will still be, by the end of this, 153 officers short of where we were in 2010. I look forward to the next election when the three Conservative Members for County Durham put out their election leaflets, claiming another 20,000 police officers. I doubt whether they will be honest with the public and say that the party of which they are members has cut the police officers by 153 over that period. The problem is not just about numbers, but about the experience of those officers. Because of those cuts, we have lost some long-serving, experienced officers, who have been replaced by individuals who will logically take a while to gain experience. In any organisation, historical and corporate knowledge is important when it comes to the effectiveness of a police force, so it is not just about numbers, but about the experience of those officers.

As I have said, we will end this period with 153 fewer officers than we had in 2010. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s constituency in North Yorkshire will end up with 190 more officers than it had in 2010. That is because every 1% increase in the precept in County Durham raises about £400,000, whereas in North Yorkshire it raises £800,000. Unless we tackle the funding formula, areas such as County Durham—and, I suspect, Dorset—will continue to be at a disadvantage.

That goes to the central point, which is that this is all a result of the Government continuing with a political decision that they took 11 years ago when they said, “We are going to cut central funding and push it on to local council tax”. Let us add to that the fact that policing is just one part of law enforcement, but we have seen court closures in County Durham and cuts in the number of prosecutors in the CPS, which has led to a system in crisis. That comment does not come from me; it comes from talking to local police officers. Even when they are successful in catching criminals, getting them through the court system is time-consuming. I accept that covid has had an effect, but a lot of it is not about that; it is about the capacity of the CPS and courts to find the time needed.

The Minister said that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. I am sorry, but we have to look at our courts system and our justice system today—they are not the party of law and order, given the paralysis in our justice system. The situation is also not fair for victims because they are waiting an inordinate length of time to get justice or even court dates, and in the end, some will think that they have not got justice when cases are dropped because of the time they have taken.

If we do not have a fundamental review of the funding formula, the situation will continue. Even with this settlement, County Durham—I put this on record yet again—which is deemed an “efficient” and “effective” force and as “outstanding” by the inspectorate, is still missing some £10 million for the next few years. Where will that come from? The only way is through more efficiencies. I have spoken to the chief constable and some great things have been done to make sure that there are improvements. However, over the past 11 years, the pressures on our police have not stood still, which has not helped. Legislation has put more demands on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the shadow Minister, said, the nature of crime, is changing. House burglaries are traumatic and terrible for individuals, but so are fraud and scams. I found it pretty depressing to hear the Business Secretary more or less dismissing fraud as though it is somehow a victimless crime. Just speak to some victims of that type of crime—they feel terrible. But fraud is a crime that is going to need more specialism. The nature of crime and the demands on our police force are changing, and that needs long-term stability and investment in our police force to provide such specialism. Without that, we will continue this cycle.

The Minister is a very combative individual and, on a personal basis, I get on quite well with him. However, the approach is all front; all smoke-and-mirrors. We need to disaggregate the spin and the headlines about 20,000 officers from the reality of what is happening on the ground. Unless the funding formula is addressed quickly, efficient and good police forces such as Durham will continue to suffer. The only people who will pay for that are my constituents and people in County Durham, who will do so through higher council tax bills and a potentially poorer service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady is right; time spent taking offenders to custody suites is time when those officers cannot be on the streets doing their job. However, we cannot spend the same pound twice. I would like to see a 24/7 first responder response, and there are ways we can do that. We have a large public estate, and I think we need to be a bit more imaginative about how and where we base our police officers, because the primary focus is on having officers on the beat in our large centres of population 24/7.

On the police funding formula review, I have been asking every Policing Minister about this since I was elected in 2001, and I was pleased to have confirmation from the Prime Minister recently that we are moving forward and are going to deliver on this. I also received a letter from the Minister himself, in which he said that the consultation on the police funding formula review would take place this summer—so I have it in writing in an official letter from the Home Office. I was very pleased indeed to read that. It sounds as if the train has left the station. This is about being fair to Bedfordshire and those other forces that have been left out, and I look forward to swift implementation. The Minister talked about effective transition arrangements for that review. I want it to be effective but I do not want it to take too long, and I hope he will bear that in mind.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This is welcome news, but it will be interesting to see when the train actually arrives. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that review has to involve the fundamental question of what the split should be between central Government funding and what is raised locally?

[Andrew Selous]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that no one likes paying council tax—I have often called it the most unpopular tax in the UK. The primary focus for us in Bedfordshire is to have a well-funded force, to have enough officers and to have them in the right places, and our greatest issue is the resolution of the funding formula issue. This Government have committed to that, and they have done so very publicly. We will have the consultation this summer. It needs to deliver, and deliver quickly.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I want to start by paying tribute to the officers and civilian staff in both police forces that cover my constituency: South Wales police and Gwent police. I also pay tribute to the wider police family. I was fortunate enough a few years ago to take part in the police parliamentary scheme, and I did some shifts with the Met here in London. I know that we are all grateful for the dedication and professionalism of all our police officers right across the country.

I obviously welcome any new officers, but it is important to remember that the increase in the number of officers is merely replacing the 20,000 police officers that have been cut since 2010. It is also important to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has highlighted, that the significant resource is now being put on the council tax payer and that in areas such as his and mine that will have a detrimental impact on council tax payers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I know that my hon. Friend’s area is similar to mine, in that it has a low council tax base. This is also unequal because, as council tax is a regressive tax, we are asking the poorest people to pay the most.

[Gerald Jones]

I absolutely agree. I do not have the exact figures, but the number of properties in band A in my constituency, and in his, is significant compared with other parts of the country.

I want to talk about neighbourhood policing, because its decimation has been felt acutely across the country. Neighbourhood policing is a key foundation of policing, and it has two major benefits: providing reassurance and building a rapport across communities; and providing a deterrent against what is often low-level disorder before it becomes a bigger issue. As the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), has highlighted, it seems that only 400 of the first 6,000 officers were deployed to neighbourhood roles. I am pleased that in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Labour Government, we have had significant financial support to employ 500 additional police community support officers, with an additional 100 being added during this current term of the Senedd. These officers support the police and the local authority community safety officers in helping to provide reassurance to residents and to act as a deterrent. Labour’s plan for the new community safety hubs will be a huge step forward.

This takes me back to the early 2000s, when I was a county councillor under the last Labour Government. In my ward we had a policing team of four officers—two constables and two PCSOs—who worked closely with the council community safety wardens, youth workers and local councillors. In fact, we carried out monthly door-to-door community safety surgeries with police officers, so that local authority issues and policing issues could be tackled jointly. That certainly had the impact of driving down antisocial behaviour. Sadly, that style of policing has been decimated across the country. We know that total crime is up 14%, not down, as the Prime Minister wrongly claimed. Over the past two years, the reduction in the number of officers has clearly had an effect on that increase in crime, and it is still having an impact now.

Finally, will the Minister consider the unfair position of Welsh police forces in respect of the apprenticeship levy? I understand that Welsh forces are around £6 million worse off compared with English forces due to the Home Office’s funding formula. Despite ongoing discussions between the four police forces, the Home Office and the Welsh Government, the matter remains unresolved, so I ask the Minister to examine that issue again because the situation is unacceptable and unsustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have been happy to fund Operation Boson, which has been dealing with serious and organised crime and drug dealing in and around Luton—which, as he says, is a particular hotspot. Our county lines settlement provides some money for receiving, or importing, forces to try to step up to the plate. However, I hope all those forces will realise that there will be a huge impact on violence specifically in their areas if they co-operate with the operations coming out of those three big exporting forces, and I hope that people will look carefully at both the funding formula and the impact of the overall investment package on their force before drawing a negative inference.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I am going to finish, because we have to move on to other business.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) invariably presents a dystopian vision of our work on crime. She is a very hard person to please. Let me now read out the bit of her speech that she obviously crossed out for some reason, in order to remind the House that according to the most recent Office for National Statistics publication, produced just last week, violence is down by 15%, murder by 16%, stabbings by 15%, theft by 20%, burglaries by 30%, car crime by 28%, and robberies by 34%.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I know the city well and it has always been welcoming, certainly in the latter decades, when community harmony has been very good and high. I hope that this will not have an impact on that. The Security Minister is there today to talk to the authorities and the police about what more we can do to help and to understand more about the circumstances, but I know that the two mayors, the police and crime commissioner and all those engaged in the welfare of Liverpool will be doing their best to reassure the community and bind it together after such a devastating event.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this urgent question and join her in thanking the security services and the members of the emergency services who were involved. It has been widely reported that TATP was used in this attack. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said from the Front Bench, in 2018 the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I serve, produced a report on the 2017 terrorist attacks. It made four recommendations on this, with recommendation N calling for the outdated system of regulation of these chemicals to be updated. In response to the Committee’s report, the Government simply noted the conclusion and said that they were committed to developing a system of regulation. The Minister says that things are unclear and he cannot comment on them, but what is clear is the fact that none of those recommendations have been taken on board since 2018. Why?

[Kit Malthouse]

As the right hon. Gentleman points out, I cannot comment on this. I know that there has been a lot of speculation about the nature of the explosion, but, as I understand it from a briefing just this morning, the forensic examination is yet to be completed. Once it is, we will be able to draw some lessons about the particular combustion and the explosive chemicals that may or may not have been used, and then we can take action accordingly.

HMP Frankland: Covid-19

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy]

That is of course extremely important; it is one of the issues that I shall outline in this debate.

The selflessness of prison staff and their commitment to their work brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent weeks, HMP Frankland has experienced an alarming rise in the number of covid-19 infections. At the peak of the outbreak, around 66 prisoners out of a prison population of 850 were confirmed as covid-19 positive, meaning that around 8% of prisoners were infected. In addition, at the peak around 220 staff were off work, with 73 operational staff covid-19 positive.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this debate. I have a lot of constituents who work in Durham, Low Newton and Frankland prisons, and I pay tribute to the hard work they have done. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the operational staff? I have had a few cases in which the Prison Service has taken quite a rigid attitude towards those who are caring for vulnerable people at home and not been flexible in its approach to some of those cases.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

My right hon. Friend is correct. My discussions with the prison governor have shown how dedicated the prison is not just to the operational staff but all the staff and prisoners and the wider prison community.

In total, given the covid cases and the numbers isolating, more than 20% of all staff employed by the prison were off work at the same time. It is clear that the number of infections at Frankland reached an alarming level, especially given what we know about the ease and speed with which the virus spreads. It is therefore not surprising that both Public Health England and the wider prison outbreak control team recommended that HMP Frankland moved from stage 4 restrictions to the most severe stage 5 restrictions, in what would have been, in effect, a complete lockdown of the prison.

The recommendation was supported by the Prison Officers Association, which is extremely concerned for the welfare of prison staff and prisoners, because of the real fear that the virus was out of control in the prison. However, even though there was strong support for stage 5 restrictions from Public Health England, the outbreak control team and the POA, the gold command at HMP Frankland rejected the recommendation and instead reduced the number of prisoners allowed to exercise at any one time and the frequency of exercise; mandated mask wearing; and increased testing. This compromise was then accepted by the outbreak control team.

I recognise the pressures that the prison leadership is under, as well as the need to balance staff and prisoner safety with prisoners’ human rights, but I am concerned that the gold command seemingly rejected the initial advice of public health professionals. Does the Minister agree that local committee concerns should not be overruled by gold commands without being discussed at a national level first, especially when supported by Public Health England?

At HMP Frankland, I am happy to say that there is an extremely open and productive relationship between the Prison Officers Association and the prison’s leadership, and that this includes daily meetings and the sharing of Public Health England advice to the outbreak control team with POA representatives. However, as I understand it, while Frankland follows best practice on this, prison governors are under no obligation to share advice and recommendations with the POA. As the union is the representative of staff within prisons, this is clearly not right. So does the Minister agree that gold commands should discuss and divulge all Public Health England advice to and with the Prison Officers Association as the representatives of prison staff?

The infection levels among staff at HMP Frankland posed two serious problems. The first is with regards to staffing levels as a result of covid-19-related absences. It is no exaggeration to say that the staffing cover was paper thin due to these absences. HMP Frankland is a high-security prison, home to some of the most dangerous prisoners in the country. In such an institution, under-staffing poses an unacceptable risk to staff at work, to the protections offered to prisoners and to the general running of the facility. While staffing shortages have not, at this stage, reached a dangerous level at Frankland, I think we can all agree that genuine threats to staffing levels at any prison must always be taken seriously.

The second issue is the threat the virus poses to the health of staff and prisoners. I am aware that Frankland is a secure environment in which there are already restrictions on prisoners’ activities and movement, which can help slow down the spread of the virus. I also appreciate that additional measures were introduced by gold command in an effort to avoid a move from stage 4 restrictions to stage 5. It is positive news that these measures appear to have had some success, with the number of staff off due to covid-19 dropping from 220 to 112, while the number of prisoners infected or isolating has dropped significantly. This is a welcome improvement, albeit one that will need to be monitored closely as restrictions are eased in wider society.

However, although the decisions to increase stage 4 restrictions in order to avoid stage 5 by HMP Frankland gold command may have lowered the numbers of staff and prisoners who have had to isolate, it is arguable that a short-term move to stage 5 would have been a lower risk and would have better protected those in the prison, especially as this was the initial advice of the outbreak control team. I know that even temporary stage 5 restrictions would have been exceptionally tough for prisoners, especially for their mental health. However, I want to be clear that the staff at Frankland are concerned about more than just their own welfare and that of their families; they are also concerned about prisoner safety. No prison officer wants a total lockdown unless it was completely necessary, as they know the impact that this would have upon prisoners. Yet, while the effects of a lockdown would have been harsh, it was arguably necessary to best keep prisoners safe from covid.

I also recognise the argument and understand the concerns that stage 5 restrictions could lead to prisoner dissent at a level that would pose a different sort of threat to staff. However, there are a number of reasons why I do not believe that this occasion on its own was an adequate reason to avoid a stage 5 lockdown due to covid-19. First, there is the fact that many prisoners are just as afraid of the risk of infection as staff are, and that they would understand the need for stage 5 restrictions if it was needed to protect them from a major covid-19 outbreak.

Secondly, there is the fact that, under stage 4 restrictions, any prisoner who must isolate as a result of possible covid-19 exposure is losing out on freedoms that other prisoners have, through no fault of their own. As a result of this, there is potentially an incentive for prisoners to not report covid-19 symptoms, so that they do not lose their access to exercise, showers and phone calls. If every prisoner is locked down under the same restrictions for a short period to combat a major infection spike, that potential is reduced.

Finally, there is the argument that a total lockdown could inspire some prisoners to act disruptively, putting the physical safety of staff at risk in a different way. While I know that there will always be a balance between managing the risk of prisoner disruption with the threat from the virus, it is vital that prisoner behaviour does not dictate the decisions taken to protect prisoners’ welfare, as well as the health and safety of staff. Does the Minister agree that the health and safety of staff should not be ignored in favour of prisoner appeasement?

It also strikes me that many of the negative implications of stage 5 restrictions could be resolved if prisoner welfare in general was improved. An example of that at HMP Frankland is the lack of telephone access in cells in comparison with other prisons. Does the Minister agree that telephones in cells would mitigate some of the impact of covid-19 restrictions on prisoners? Will she update the House on when HMP Frankland can expect to have such facilities?

The final issue I would like to raise is the treatment of prisoners in relation to wider society. While I understand that the leadership at Frankland took the decision to prohibit the use of gym equipment, I have also heard that that is not the case in all prisons in England. At a time when gyms have been closed nationwide due to the Government’s position that they are not safe to be open, it seems bizarre that gym facilities at some prisons have remained open. Will the Minister confirm that she believes that coronavirus restrictions in prisons should mirror those in wider society?

I want to praise the dialogue and the relationship between the governors at HMP Frankland and the POA representatives at the prison. They might not agree on every issue, but the strength of their working relationship has been stressed to me. In my opinion, it offers a great example to other institutions and employers across the country.

While the situation at Frankland is, thankfully, improving, it is a reminder that no matter how well an institution responds to covid-19, there is always room for improvement and lessons to be learned. Above all, we must recognise that there is a human element to these situations and that we cannot just look at numbers alone, alarming as they were. Prison officers work in a job where social distancing is often impossible and where the people they work with are not always compliant. That places an incredible level of stress on staff.

The prison staff and many of the prisoners at Frankland are afraid of the virus, as they are at every prison. Just like everyone else, they fear getting ill and the staff are scared of bringing the virus home to their families and to their communities. No one should have to work or live in an environment that is not safe. While prisons must stay open, no matter the circumstances, the way in which they operate can be altered to keep people safe and to mitigate the risks to staff and prisoners.

I am grateful to the Minister for her time and to right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions. I hope that important lessons can be learned from this situation.

Streatham Incident

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind us of the powers of Parliament in that respect, and, indeed, of the role of the Law Officers in giving consent to legislation that has retrospective effect. I remind the House that this is all about the administration of sentences, rather than their actual length or type. That is why I judge it appropriate in these unprecedented circumstances to introduce this legislation. I will discuss the details of the matters he raises with him when the legislation is introduced.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have no problem in supporting stopping early release, but the Secretary of State is aware that there are individuals who, no matter how much rehabilitation we do, will come out still dangerous. When, in the last Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee took evidence on the Westminster Bridge attack, the security services raised with the Committee concern about 38, I think, individuals who would be released in the next two years and considered as dangerous. Was this individual one of them? I suspect that he was if he was being followed by an MI5 team. What are we going to do in terms of protecting the public from these individuals, because they will come out anyway after a certain period, early release or not? If the Government did know about this individual beforehand, why did they not intercede beforehand, because I know that the Security Service has real, serious concerns about these people on quite short sentences?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to the work of the right. hon. Gentleman on that Committee. He will know that it would be invidious of me to descend into the particular circumstances of this individual case, as the investigation is ongoing, but he raises a valid point about the monitoring of offenders post sentence and post licence. That is why I am looking very carefully to see what can be done in the provisions of the new counter-terrorism Bill to extend the purchase of the licence system to elongate licences so that we have that formal system as part of the sentence. The right hon. Gentleman also echoes the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on whether more can be done with regard to a particular regime that could be applied. These are difficult questions, but I am sure that he and I will engage upon them in the weeks ahead.

Policing and Crime Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I totally agree with the points that my right hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that among the problems with Hillsborough were not only the off-the-record briefings that took place later, but the on-the-record briefings to get the narrative right from the beginning?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree on both levels. This was a cover-up perpetrated on the record, off the record and in the Committee rooms of this House. It went to the very top—even to 10 Downing Street, where the head of press at the time briefed that a “tanked-up mob” caused the disaster. This cover-up went to the highest level. What chance did ordinary families have when faced with the might of the establishment seeking to perpetrate a lie on that scale? It has been a 27-year fight, as we now know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

That is extraordinarily unfair, although this Government have made things even more unfair with their cuts to legal aid. People are not getting through and they are not getting funding when they apply in the way that they would have done in the past. They are unrepresented at these inquests, which cannot be right.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that cases such as Hillsborough required a lot of input from lawyers. Asking as someone who has a knee-jerk reaction that we should not be feeding lawyers, is it possible for the Chief Coroner to lay down rules in some of these cases so that if a public authority comes forward with banks of lawyers, the other side should be given legal representation, or the public authority told that those lawyers are not needed?

[Andy Burnham]

The amendment is designed to develop the same effect and to state that there should be parity of legal funding. That is an incentive for the public sector not to spend too much on its own. If it has to fund families as well, that might bring down the legal bill—it might not add any further costs.

[Mr Jones]

We now have the Chief Coroner. In the past a lot was wrong—I sat on the Coroners and Justice Bill Committee, and changes could still be made to the coroners service in this country. Some recognition of the parity that my right hon. Friend refers to would be welcome, but as I know from local government and other sectors, the knee-jerk reaction these days is to get a lawyer involved and, in some cases, I am not sure that we necessarily need that.

[Andy Burnham]

We need inquisitorial inquests rather than adversarial inquests. In the case of Hillsborough, the Lord Chief Justice made a specific ruling when he quashed the original inquest. He hoped, given that the police had clearly tainted the evidence, that the new inquest would not degenerate into an adversarial battle, but—I am afraid to say—that is exactly what happened. At public expense, one individual in particular, hired to represent the former officers, a Mr John Beggs, went into the courtroom and repeated all kinds of lies and innuendo about supporters of Liverpool football club. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I were there; we witnessed it—and it was a particularly unpleasant thing to witness. It is even more galling to think that we were paying for that.

It is not just the cost but how people are questioned that is gross and unjust. I will give one final example to illustrate. The House will know that, after a long fight by her family, an inquest was recently held into the death of Cheryl James, who died at the Deepcut barracks in Surrey. The QC acting for Surrey police was the same Mr John Beggs. I know, from speaking to Cheryl’s father, that the family were deeply hurt by an intrusive and aggressive line of questioning that focused on several very personal questions. They were particularly hurt by one untrue allegation levelled at them. According to Mr Beggs, Mr James, in making inquiries to Surrey police, had distracted the latter from the Milly Dowler investigation. Can Members imagine how he felt when he heard that? In trying to get to the truth about what happened to his daughter, he found himself the subject of an outrageous, appalling slur, which the Dowler family, such is their decency, stepped in to correct.

It should not be like this. It must not be like this. It is well known that police forces are instructed to hire this individual if they feel in a tight spot, and they pay huge amounts of public money to do so. It should not be allowed to carry on. We should call time on it today.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good point—that kind of adversarial inquest is wrong—but, to repeat, could not the Chief Coroner lay something down in guidance to coroners to stop such behaviour? Not only is it not good for families; it does not help get to the truth either.

[Andy Burnham]

No, it does not. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I cannot see why that should not happen. Equally, I cannot see why the Government would not accept the Bill, proposed by Lord Wills in another place, to create a national office to support bereaved families so that each family does not have to reinvent the wheel and go through all the learning needed to get ready for an inquest. That is another good proposal.

To finish, we are seeking to establish a simple principle. In the words of Mr James, this is about “parity of arms”—if it has to be like that. If there is to be an adversarial battle in the courtroom, we should at least give bereaved families the same ability as the public sector to defend themselves. That is an unanswerable principle, and I am sorry the Government have decided they cannot support it tonight. I know they are saying they are waiting for the conclusion of Bishop James’s report, but this is bigger than Hillsborough—it is very much evident in Hillsborough, but it is much bigger—and concerns a number of families facing a similar injustice today.

Is it not the case that public money should fund the establishment of the truth and, in particular, help people to get to the truth at the first time of asking, so that the truth can be used by public bodies to learn—to look at where they went wrong and see how they can improve? Instead, they do the opposite. They go into those courtrooms to defend themselves and reputations, spending large amounts of taxpayers’ money in doing so. I hope that the Government would agree with the spirit of what I am saying tonight. If they do, I would hope for a clear commitment this evening that they support the aim of parity of funding for families at inquests. From there, I hope we might be able to move forward. From what I can gather, however, the Government have not done enough, and unless the Minister is able to provide this level of reassurance, we will press the new clause to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 58 would prohibit the use of a person’s home as a place of safety under section 136. Under section 135, when a police officer goes to someone’s home, it may be appropriate for them to stay with that person, but the organisation Mind has raised serious concerns about taking someone by force to their home as a place of safety under section 136.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about detention at home, which I raised in Committee? Although it is welcome that this Bill will try to reduce the number of people going into police cells, the de facto position may be to take people home because of the lack of beds elsewhere, even though that might not be the best place for the individual concerned.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fear is that that will become the default position in some localities because of the lack of resources available. That would be a big mistake. In circumstances where section 136 is used, surely the person should be taken to a health-based place of safety. A real effort is under way around the country—it is showing signs of success—through the use of approaches such as the street triage service, to reduce substantially the use of section 136 at all and to deal with issues in a more informal way. However, where it has to be used, we must make sure that the person is taken to the right place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I wish to address new clause 23 and take the Minister on a very short metaphorical journey with me, although perhaps nowhere near as far as new clause 23 seeks to go. I am sorry if I am trying the patience of the Minister and the House, because the Minister has been exceptionally courteous today, as he has been to me on previous aspects of the Bill.

Let me explain the mischief of face coverings, with which the House is well acquainted. In my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I mentioned two events: the Conservative party conference in Manchester, and an incident in my constituency in which, during the badger cull, two people in masks parked outside a farmhouse several evenings in a row as it was getting dark, deliberately intending to intimidate. A similar thing happened at the Blackpool conference. I was there when people, women in particular, were intimidated by people in masks. If only the police had been able to ask those people to take off the masks, I think the intimidation would have stopped almost on the spot. I suspect that in those two incidents, the mere act of the constable on duty asking those people to take off the masks would have stopped the mischief there and then.

That is the journey on which I want to take my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is perhaps not the entirety of new clause 23, but let us simply look at section 60AA of the Public Order Act 1994, which requires a constable on duty to obtain prior written consent before a mask is taken off—[Interruption.] The Minister is going to intervene. May I just explain where I am coming from on this? Very often, a constable will get on the radio and obtain verbal consent, and the written consent is given afterwards. Technically, a crime is being committed because they have not got prior written consent.

Let us do away with the whole issue of written consent. We train our constables to a very high level, and we put a great deal of trust in them. Let us trust them in individual situations. If they think that face masks are a problem, we should give them the power to demand that the face masks be removed immediately. It may even be possible to do this by secondary legislation. Section 60AA—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister want me to give way? If he does as I suggest, I think we will achieve what we want to achieve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of several of my hon. Friends. I will also refer to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the fact that the state’s power to deprive someone of their liberty is one of the most draconian acts at its disposal. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, someone who is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, other than under sections 135 or 136, is entitled to a mental health advocate. If they are detained under sections 135 or 136 of that Act, they are not. The only way in which they could access legal advice, as I think the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, is if they are detained at a police station.

Quite rightly, the Government want to prevent people from being taken to police stations in the first place—I give them credit for this—because a police cell is clearly not the correct place for someone who is in mental health crisis. The important thing is that such individuals need some advocacy. At the moment, if an individual is not taken to a police cell or a police station, they will not have access to independent legal advice or any type of advocacy. New clause 24 is designed to get some parity with the rest of the 1983 Act, in which people do have advocacy. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who responded to a similar amendment in Committee, has just taken her seat. She has promised to look at this issue.

I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but it is important that we put in place a system under which people who are detained under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act can, at least, access some advice. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk in new clause 59, which is designed to do a similar thing by ensuring that individuals have access to an adult who could speak or advocate on their behalf. I have had discussions with the Minister, and she has given undertakings to look at how that could be done.

I agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) that many of the things in the Bill are not necessarily the responsibility of the police. They have stepped up to the mark, in many cases, to fill a gap created by a lack of funding or support. In some cases, because of the disjunction between mental health services, local authorities and others, the police are seen as the last resort. He is right to highlight that.

That brings me on to new clause 26, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, and which I welcome. There is good practice already in many police forces, which undergo mental health training—in Durham, the chief constable has instigated a whole force review to make sure that people have access to mental health training—but it is important that we have consistency. Police forces will be empowered and given greater expertise if they know how to use not just sections 136 and 137 of the 1983 Act, but other sections. I pay tribute to police forces up and down the country, because there is some good practice.

In Committee, we referred to the concordat, which is a good move forward in ensuring that there is a joined-up approach at local level between police forces, local authorities and the health service. I tabled an amendment in Committee to put that concordat into some sort of statutory framework. I know that the Minister is exploring with colleagues at the Department of Health how we can get some agreement, or some sort of reporting, on what is happening at a local level.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk has the done the House a great service by tabling new clause 40 because it concerns a subject that is not being talked about. I totally agree with him; I can envisage no circumstances in which it would be necessary to use a Taser on a mental health ward. The right hon. Gentleman praised Black Mental Health UK, which has done a lot of work on the issue. When I met Black Mental Health UK, I was struck by the stark fact that something has to be done. I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister have looked at the figures, and the only mathematical conclusion we can reach is that people from black and Afro-Caribbean communities are being detained under the 1983 Act disproportionately compared with any other section of the community. Those figures cannot just be the result of chance. I urge the Government to look seriously at the matter and think about how we can put mechanisms in place to ensure that that is not the case.

On new clause 43, I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne that if the use of Tasers is not going to be prohibited, we should at least have statistics to show when and where they are being used. New clause 58 is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee. I give credit to the Government for their efforts to ensure that people in mental health crisis do not end up in a police cell, but unless we have very close monitoring and reporting, we might end up in the de facto position that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has just mentioned in relation to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. Is it not remarkable just how far this House has come in the past four years? In this debate, we are putting the interests of mental health patients at the centre of what we are discussing, and he should take great credit for that personally.

[Mr Jones]

I should not be the only one taking credit for that. The hon. Gentleman should do so as well, as should many other people in the House. To give credit to the Government, they have taken this issue seriously and both the Ministers who served on the Committee are committed to ensuring that we get the best outcomes for people in mental health crisis in the criminal justice system.

We should soon have a situation in which police cells will not be the first resort, as they have been in the past. I am not criticising the police for taking people to the cells; they were often the only places available. However, we need to monitor closely what happens to people when they are detained under sections 135 and 136 of the Act. I would not want keeping people at home to become the de facto position. That might be helpful for the statistics on keeping people out of police cells, but people’s homes might not be the best possible place for individuals in crisis. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis made the point that they do not necessarily have to be placed in a health facility. The hon. Member for Broxbourne has said on numerous occasions that this country needs a network of places of safety for individuals in mental health crisis. Those places could be run by health authorities, by charities or by others, but we need such a network because neither a police cell nor, in some cases, a hospital is the best place for certain people in crisis.

I am glad that the proposed changes to the Bill are being taken seriously by the Government. I pay tribute to the way in which both Ministers have addressed these matters in Committee. Even though some of the proposals are not going to be put in the Bill, I believe that the Ministers, working with colleagues in the Department of Health, will be able to achieve a situation in which people in mental health crisis do not end up in the criminal justice system. That should be our aim.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I shall not be referring to the mental health provisions in the Bill, but I commend colleagues who have already spoken about that and who have been personally responsible for taking this issue so far and for encouraging the Government to listen to the arguments that they have been putting forward for years. I also commend the Government for their response to the debates that took place in Committee and, more generally, for their attitude towards mental health. I also want to commend the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), for the way in which he spoke to his new clauses almost as part of the campaign on Hillsborough. He spoke passionately and powerfully and I hope that the Government will respond positively to his requests for the new clauses to be accepted, if only in principle. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate.

I want to speak briefly to new clause 48 and new schedule 1, which propose the re-creation of a national fire service inspectorate in England. My friend the Minister is, like me, a former firefighter. When I ask him to do things in our exchanges on fire brigade matters, he sometimes throws back at me the fact that I did not do them when I was Fire Minister and asks why should he do them now. I want to ask him why he is recreating the fire service inspectorate when we did away with it and put other arrangements in place. I will be interested to hear his explanation. I welcome the fact, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and others have done, that the Government recognise there is a vacuum and that something has to be created to fill the gap. Whether that is an inspectorate as set out in the new clause or whether that wording changes when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, the fact that the Government are moving in this direction is welcome.

In Westminster Hall last week, we discussed with the Minister the increasing number of calls related to flooding that the fire service now deals with, the transition towards dealing with more medical emergency calls and the arrangements with the national health service for the fire service to do more social care visits alongside fire safety visits. These changes all demonstrate the fact that the fire service is moving into different territory, and that different skills are being developed which require different resources as well as the staff to carry them out.

As I mentioned in Westminster Hall, criticisms are being levelled at the fire service, parts of which are being blamed for the reductions in the service. The fire and rescue service has been a victim of its own success in recent decades, having cut the number of calls and fires and reduced the number of deaths and serious injuries. That has resulted in the loss of fire stations, fire appliances and firefighters. The Minister will remember that I stated in that debate that there are nearly 7,000 fewer firefighters in the UK now than there were in 2010. That fact has raised a number of eyebrows, and questions are being asked about attendance times being met and resources being available. People are now asking whether the service is still equipped to do the job that it needs to do.

Policing and Crime Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Dromey]

First, the Police Minister is right to be frank: this set of proposals will put pressure on not just the police but a whole range of other agencies. I note what he said of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and its PEEL reports, and I add that the College of Policing and the Home Affairs Committee will keep this matter under review. I also welcome the proposed memorandum of understanding so that we can make the new system work. On that basis, and given those assurances, we will not press our amendments to a vote.

Amendment 148 agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Restrictions on places that may be used as places of safety

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 60, page 68, line 29, at end insert—

“( ) Before a house, flat or room where a person is living is used as a place of safety the patient must first be offered one of the following locations as an alternative place of safety—

(a) a residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977;

(b) a hospital as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983; or

(c) a mental health care home.”

This amendment would require that a patient was offered a health-based place of safety as an alternative to their, or someone else’s, home being used as a place of safety.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 159, in clause 61, page 69, leave out lines 31 to 38 and insert—

“the point at which the decision is taken to remove a person to a place of safety, or keep them at the current place of safety.”

This amendment would mean that the permitted period of detention started when the decision was taken to remove a person to a place of safety, rather than the point at which they arrived at the place of safety.

Amendment 158, in clause 61, page 69, line 31, leave out “24” and insert “12”.

This amendment reduces the permitted period of detention to 12 hours.

Government new clause 28—Protective searches: individuals removed etc under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

New clause 11—Detention in places of safety: annual reporting—

“(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish an annual report containing statistics on the usage of the power to detain a person in a place of safety.

(2) This report shall contain, but need not be limited to, information on—

(a) the number of detentions;

(b) the age of detainees;

(c) the length of detention; and

(d) the location of the detention.”

This new clause would require police forces to report annually on the number of detentions in places of safety, including information on the age of the detainee and the location and duration of the detention.

New clause 12—Access to Independent Mental Health Advocates—

“(1) A person detained in a place of safety under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall have the right to an independent mental health advocate (see section 130A of the Mental Health Act 1983).”

This new clause would extend the right to an independent mental health advocate to those detained under sections 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

New clause 50—Powers under the Mental Health Act 1983: reporting and review—

“(1) One year after section 59, 60 and 61 of this Act come into force the Secretary of State must lay before parliament a report on the impact of the changes to powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 on mental health assessment and outcomes.

(2) This report shall contain, but need not be limited to, information on—

(a) length of time taken from commencement of mental health assessment of an individual under sections 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act, to either the discharge, admittance to hospital or extension of period of detention of these individuals,

(b) availability of trained medical professionals to carry out assessments, and

(c) availability of hospital beds for persons deemed to require inpatient care.

(3) In producing this review the Home Secretary must consult the Secretary of State for Health.”

This new clause would make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to report on the impact of Section 59, 60 and 61 on mental health assessment and outcomes. This would allow for scrutiny of whether the proposals improve the outcomes for those subject to police detention and mental health assessment, and whether health providers have the capacity to carry out timely assessments and provide any necessary inpatient care.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I have said in Committee, and on the Floor of the House, that I recognise that the Government are trying to make progress on ensuring that the way in which people with mental illness are treated by the police is both compassionate and secures them the help that they deserve. The problem that is evident today, and will be as the Bill continues its journey through this House and the other place, is that although the Home Department is trying to improve the situation, the elephant in the room is the resources and activities of the Department of Health. This is an area in which two Departments are intertwined, because the issues are quite clearly not, in essence, a police matter, although the police are left to resolve the problem.

Amendment 157 recognises that the Government have tried to emphasise that a police cell is the worst place for not only a young person but an adult. I commend the Government’s initiative in trying to ensure that few adults, and certainly no children, are detained in a police cell. We have to ask why they are currently detained, which is—I am going to be very political—because of the reduction of beds and facilities by the Department of Health. I have tabled amendment 157 because the Government, quite helpfully, have no objection to a place of safety, under the Mental Health Act 1983, being someone’s flat or home, because that is a place in which those individuals can be supported by mental health services and other agencies. That is important. The problem is that it might become the default position that people are forced to stay in their homes if an alternative is not available. I put it to the Committee that most of us, given the choice between staying at home or being in a police cell, would stay at home. However, that does not guarantee that home is the best place of safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and speaks with authority on the subject. Does he recognise that there are some excellent local examples of clinical commissioning groups working well with the police? In Kingston we have a new project where the mental health trusts, the clinical commissioning group and the Met police have come together to provide just the kind of facility we are talking about. Although there is more to do nationally, there are some good local examples of the policy working.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the few good things that came out of the Health and Social Care Bill was that it allowed local providers to develop contracts out of the box, perhaps with the third sector and others, to provide good local services. I am on record as having said that. I have to say that in my own area and nationally that has not happened in practice because unfortunately the default position is that the contracts that have been awarded are so large that a lot of small, good voluntary organisations that could provide those services are not getting a look in.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the project in his constituency, but we need to ensure that there is uniformity across the piece. If we have a situation where the only option is for people to go to a police station or stay at home, that is not satisfactory.

Amendment 159 is also probing, aiming to explore and again bring pressure on the Department of Health. With regard to the time limits put in place around the place of safety, it is important that people are assessed quickly. It is no good waiting, in a police cell, hospital or any other facility, for a long time without assessment.

When being removed to a place of safety, it is important that the assessment is made quickly and undue time limits are not in place, for example, if someone has to travel a long distance to access a service. At the point of detention, a decision would start with the removal of the individual, certainly in terms of Lord Crisp’s report for the Commission on Acute Adult Psychiatric Care. That gives examples of people having to travel up to 50 km to access a mental health bed. If that were done in the back of a police car or van, it could take a long time and add to that individual’s distress. Again, I want to get the Minister’s thinking; I do not think for one minute that she wants anyone to be detained for an unduly long time without assessment. We are probing to find out what the Government are thinking in terms of trying to put pressure on the services that provide assessments. Can we get intervention at an earlier stage?

Amendment 158 is linked to the previous amendment and is another probing amendment. I welcome the reduction from 72 to 24 hours, showing again that the Government want to improve the situation. This probing amendment would further reduce the time from 24 to 12 hours. I would like to understand the Government’s rationale for agreeing to 24 hours. Under existing and proposed legislation, if someone is clearly incapable of assessment, that period can be extended. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has a target of three hours for someone to be assessed. I accept that there are difficulties: for example, if someone is intoxicated or has some other issue, with drugs or anything else, an assessment may not be possible for a long time, but I think that 24 hours is too long.

I have tabled these amendments to assist the Minister to press her Health colleagues to push the boundary. I accept what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about some excellent local provision. We do need a uniform service, but it would be completely wrong for individuals to be detained longer than necessary. I would not, for one minute, suggest that any healthcare professional, police officer or the Government, for that matter, want to detain people. Early diagnosis and assessment are in the interest of the individual and help to ensure an efficient use of time.

Let me deal with new clauses 11 and 12. I may push new clause 11 to a vote because it is important. One fear I have is that we have before us a Home Office Bill which deals with the problem faced by police forces up and down the country of people being detained under the Mental Health Act. The right aim of the Home Secretary is to ensure that no one is detained in a police cell. Certainly, her target for young people is welcome and she clearly wants to get to a position whereby no adult is detained in a police cell either. The problem I have with that is that we may achieve the target in terms of the police—a police authority or a police and crime commissioner may be able to stand up and say, “We have nobody in police cells who has been detained under the Mental Health Act”, but unless we have some indication of what has actually happened to those individuals, it could mask a problem. It could move away from the clear spotlight that has been put on this, certainly in terms of young people being detained in police cells.

If the answer to the written question that we ask every year is that nobody is being detained in police cells, that is good, but if people are languishing in the community without support, or are unable to access the treatment that they want, that would let the Department of Health—again, not the Home Office—off the hook in terms of its responsibility to those individuals. It is important that we have reliable statistics, because we need to see where there are pressures, which there certainly are. Having talked to my local police force, I know that forces throughout the country are dealing with a lot of mental illness problems that they are not qualified to deal with. The system has failed when people with such problems turn up in police cells, so we need to address that.

I feel passionately about new clause 12, because, very strangely, the only people who are not allowed advocates under the Mental Health Act are people who are sectioned under section 135 or 136. I am not sure why that was agreed when that Act passed through this place. It may have been to do with cost, and I understand that if we offer everyone who is sectioned an advocate, costs will be incurred, but we are talking about ensuring that people with mental illness are given the right approach and support. If someone is arrested for any other crime, they should have an advocate to speak on their behalf. Many people think that those with mental illness will have family members or others to help them, but there are clearly individuals who do not, so there is no one there to speak on their behalf. There are also individuals who go into crisis whose family members have never experienced anyone with mental illness and so will not know the right questions to ask or the rights of the individual.

The need for an advocate is particularly relevant to the issue I mentioned earlier: the home becoming a place of safety. Is someone really going to object to their home becoming the “place of safety” if they have no one to advocate for them or understand their position? I do not think they would. The default position would be that the easiest option is to stay at home, even though it might not be the best option for some individuals, so advocacy is very important.

As I said on Second Reading, sections 135 and 136 are unique powers that are, quite rightly, not used lightly. They are used to protect either the individual themselves or the people who might be in danger from their actions, but that still leads to people’s liberties being taken away from them. If the default position in this country is that someone who is arrested for a crime is entitled to legal representation, it is not too much to ask in this day and age that people who are detained—we are not talking about a massive number of cases—should at least, within a permitted period, be allowed an advocate to speak on their behalf and advise them. Properly done, that may well save time and money by ensuring that the individual takes the advice they are offered and by allowing the system—the police and health services—to ensure that that person is directed to the help they require.

[The Chair]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has expressed his intention to press new clause 11 to a Division.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

New clauses 11 and 12.

[The Chair]

It might be helpful to the Committee if I point out that although both new clauses can be debated at this point, any Divisions will come later when we deal with new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I know that it will seem odd to the shadow Minister for a Home Office Minister to refuse further powers, but I will at this stage. I will return to that point later.

I will deal first with whether a health-based place of safety is the most suitable place of safety in every case, which goes to the nub of amendment 157. As the hon. Member for North Durham knows, a private home can already be used as a place of safety for a person detained under section 136 of the 1983 Act if the occupier consents. Clause 60 will make it possible to use a private home as a place of safety after a section 135 warrant has been used to enter those premises.

Where consideration is given to using a private home, it should be because it is the most appropriate place of safety for meeting that person’s needs, and not due to a lack of better health-based alternatives. In determining which place of safety to take a person to, those involved will need to consider all the relevant circumstances in the round. However, if the person concerned is particularly frail or likely to be very distressed if away from familiar surroundings, removing them from a home setting may be judged to be, on balance, more harmful than helpful. Conducting the mental health assessment in the home may therefore prove both quicker and a more satisfactory experience for all concerned. Similarly, it may be preferable to take a young person to their family home, rather than detaining them in a strange place where they know no one.

There is no question of a person being taken to a private residence or forced to remain there against their will. The use of a private dwelling as a place of safety will require the active consent of both the person detained and the occupiers of the residence.

The shadow Minister talked of street triage. When I have met street triage teams across the country and seen mental health clinicians working with law enforcement, the best cases have been where the law enforcement officer has allowed the mental health professional to take responsibility for the necessary decisions. I have seen examples of the mental health professional, rather than the police officer, going into the place where the individual in crisis is, assessing them and determining whether they should be arrested or detained, whether at their own home, at somebody else’s home or in a health-based place of safety.

Anybody who has been in a police custody suite—I hasten to add that it was not as an inmate, in my case—will know that it is stark and brightly lit, with no shade and nowhere to hide. It is a horrible environment for somebody who is ill to find themselves in. Going to a health-based place of safety is a much better option, but it may be that some people can be treated better and get the appropriate care in their own home. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not saying that there is no need for health-based places of safety—absolutely not. We are determined that health-based places of safety will be available as they are needed, but for some people it is better to be treated in their own home. In the majority of cases I genuinely believe that the health-based place of safety is the best place, but for a small number that will not be the case.

The Bill is designed to increase the flexibility that police and medical professionals have to act in the best interests of the person concerned in a wide range of circumstances, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards remain in place to prevent abuses of such a system.

Amendment 159 seeks to provide that the period of detention would commence when a decision to detain was made, rather than on the person’s arrival at a place of safety. As the hon. Member for North Durham will know, sections 135 and 136 enable someone to be removed to a place of safety if that is required. Once they arrive at the place of safety, it is essential that the mental health professionals have sufficient time to conduct the assessment and arrange any further care and treatment that are required. Any individual in such a circumstance must have the opportunity to have a thorough assessment that is not driven by detention deadlines.

Amendment 159 would unfairly penalise both the people in need of care and the health professionals assessing them if the decision to remove them was taken in an isolated place and if getting them to a place of safety would take some time. I know from my constituency that in isolated rural constituencies, things just take more time. As it happens, one also cannot give birth in Staffordshire Moorlands because there is no maternity facility. If one goes into labour, it will take at least half an hour to reach a maternity hospital. That is the reality of isolated rural communities.

Similarly, what about situations in which removal is difficult and risky for all concerned—for example, when someone is threatening to jump off a bridge? An attending police officer would probably make the decision to detain very soon after arriving on the scene, but it might take time to get the individual off the bridge. Would it be reasonable to require the police officer, in that highly pressured situation, to think about the clock ticking towards a time when they would have to release the person, whether or not they had managed to get them to a suitable place for a mental health assessment?

I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment. I think he intends to ensure that the person is transported to a place of safety as quickly as is reasonable. That can be addressed through guidance and the performance management of ambulance response times, rather than through legislation. Front-line professionals need to make the right decisions, taking account of the circumstances and the individual’s best interests.

Amendment 158 seeks to reduce further the permitted period of detention. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement among members of the Committee that the current period of up to 72 hours is much too long. It was put in place to take into account bank holidays, weekends and so on, but that is not good enough. We cannot have a situation in which, because someone has a mental health crisis on the Friday night of a bank holiday weekend, they find themselves in a police cell for 72 hours. That is simply unacceptable. It cannot be right to hold someone who is suffering a crisis and is in urgent need of a mental health assessment against their will for up to three days anywhere, not just in a police cell.

Clause 61 deals with that issue by introducing the concept of a permitted period of detention, and setting that period at 24 hours. We have also allowed for an extension by a further 12 hours if—and only if—the person’s clinical condition merits it. This is not a target time. Just as they are now, we expect that the vast majority of cases will be resolved much more quickly. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recommended, as a matter of good practice, that the assessment should start within three hours of the person being detained, and that has been built into the Mental Health Act code of practice. I want to be clear that 24 hours is not a target. We do not expect that a mental health assessment will start at 23 hours. We want it to start as soon as is reasonably practical, to ensure that the person gets the assessment and treatment that they need as soon as it is required.

We have been told by stakeholders that there will be occasions when the clinical condition of the person is such that they simply cannot be assessed immediately—for example, because they are intoxicated through drugs or alcohol. We have listened to that advice, and the maximum permitted period of detention has been set at 24 hours so that time is built in for the effects of intoxication to wear off. Otherwise, we would risk creating a situation in which the assessment process was made difficult or impossible because the person was unable to participate fully.

Equally, a shorter maximum detention period would risk the person having to be released before they had been assessed because they were not yet clinically fit to participate. Clearly, that would be in no one’s best interests. For those reasons, we have set the permitted period of detention at 24 hours. In the Government’s view, that provides a good balance between keeping periods of detention as short as reasonably possible and making sure that the assessment can be carried out in the most effective way.

The provision for an extension of not more than 12 hours over and above the original 24 hours, is for the very rare cases where the clinician responsible for carrying out the assessment is satisfied that the person’s clinical condition is such that the assessment cannot be started or completed within the 24-hour period. I want to be clear here: the provision to extend beyond 24 hours will be based solely on the person’s clinical condition. There is no scope for it to be used in any other circumstance, such as staffing problems.

In practice, the average period of detention is now less than 11 hours. That time includes the person being detained, the assessment being made and any future care or treatment arrangements arising out of that assessment being put in place. In the majority of cases, the necessary processes are already completed well within 24 hours. Of course, we recognise that the reduction to 24 hours may represent more of a challenge in some areas than others, but the work that is going on across England to improve mental health crisis care services, backed by both the national crisis care concordat and the 94 local concordat groups, is helping to develop services that can respond to the changing needs of the areas they serve.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Durham that the 24-hour time limit is not some arbitrary figure that has been chosen for convenience, but a deliberate decision that seeks to establish the balance between compulsion and care that I mentioned earlier.

New clause 11 seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement in respect of detention in places of safety. The Government agree that the police should be transparent about the use of their powers under the Mental Health Act, so that we can see how often these sensitive powers are used, who they are used for and what further actions are taken. That will enable the changes being made through the Bill to be monitored effectively. It is only through looking at the data that we are in the position we are in. When my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister had responsibility for this area, he was determined to get to the bottom of what was and was not working well, and to make the decisions and changes that were needed to get to things working well across the country.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre and the National Police Chiefs Council publish annual data on detentions under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. For section 135, data are provided by health services covering the volume of detentions in which people are taken to a health-based place of safety. For section 136, the data include the numbers of people taken to police custody and health-based places of safety and are provided by the police and health services respectively.

However, we know that police data in this area have varied in quality. As a result, the Home Office is working with forces across England and Wales on a new data collection system for section 135 and 136 detentions to raise the level of consistency across the country. The new data set is voluntary in 2015-16, but will become a mandatory part of the Home Office’s annual data requirement for all forces in England and Wales from April this year—this month.

The annual data requirement will capture not only the number of detentions, but the age, ethnicity and gender of the people detained; the place of safety used, including, where applicable, the reason for using police custody; and the method of transportation and, where a police vehicle is used, the reason why. We intend to publish the data annually to ensure that there is full transparency, so I hope the hon. Member for North Durham will not need to ask written questions at that point.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome what the Minister has said, as it goes to the core of what new clause 11 aims to achieve. In what format will those data be published? Will there be a consistent approach, as she suggests, so that areas can be compared? That is the other important point to consider as this legislation progresses: we must ensure that it is working, that people do not end up in police cells and that we have comparable data from different areas.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we do not have comparable data, we cannot compare. My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who set this work in train, was adamant that we needed comparable, appropriate data, which would be available online, so that we could make a fair comparison.

It is a fair suggestion that the length of time for which people are detained should be recorded, but there are practical difficulties. It would be incredibly difficult for the police to keep such information, because, quite frankly, we do not want police officers to be part of the process once somebody has been detained under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act, apart from in the very rare cases where a police station is used.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise to the Committee for the length at which I have responded to these points, but I think it is incredibly important that what the Government are trying to achieve is well understood and that we all share the aims of the Bill. I commend new clause 28 to the Committee.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

As I said, my amendments are probing amendments. I thank the Minister for the full way in which she has responded to them. I know, and I want to put it on the record, that she, too, has a genuine interest in this subject and wants to do the best for individuals who suffer mental health problems.

I welcome the Minister’s response to new clause 11. The data are going to be very important, because they will attest to whether the changes are working. By comparing areas with one another, local scrutiny will allow areas to improve their situations and to learn from best practice. As she said in response to an intervention, what happens in one area can be transferred to another.

I hear what the Minister says about new clause 12. I accept her point that this situation is very different from being sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, but for people to be detained without any right to advocacy is unique. Like her, I do not want to overburden or inhibit the system, but there needs to be a basic right for individuals to have access to information. Given her commitment to further discussions on new clause 12, I shall not press it to a vote, but we may come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Application of maritime enforcement powers: general

Amendment made: 214, in clause 62, page 71, line 29, at end insert—

“( ) a National Crime Agency officer having the powers and privileges of a constable in England and Wales under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, or”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment makes express provision for National Crime Agency officers to come within the definition of law enforcement officer that applies for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 63 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Firearms Act 1968: meaning of “firearm” etc.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 227, in clause 77, page 81, line 7, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment would remove the exception for airsoft guns from the definition of a lethal barrelled weapon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I, too, hope that you had a really happy holiday—I am learning from the Minister how to do these things.

The amendment would remove the exemption for airsoft guns from the definition of a lethal barrelled weapon from the Bill. It has been tabled as a probing amendment to understand why the Government have allowed an exemption in this case.

Policing and Crime Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

I will not delay the Committee too long on this group of amendments, but I will bring joy to the shadow Police Minister in a second—something that I did not manage to do for the shadow Fire Minister on Tuesday. Clause 21 strengthens the protections for police whistleblowers by conferring powers on the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers without referral from a police force, to keep whistleblowers updated on the progress of the investigation’s outcomes, and to protect the identity of whistleblowers, as we would all wish.

I have looked closely at amendment 162, and there is an anomaly in it. Although I wish the shadow Minister not to press the amendment, I commit to coming back to the issue on Report, because there is a case for consulting the Police Advisory Board, on which the representative bodies—including the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, police officer and staff associations and the Police Staff Council—are represented, to bring it in line with proposed new part 2B of the Police Reform Act 2002.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister outline what he has in mind by “specific exceptional circumstances” in the regulations? What will be exceptional?

[Mike Penning]

It would have to be absolutely exceptional, such as for national security. With that in mind, I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 162, and I will basically do what he is asking for on Report. So that I can formulate it correctly, I ask him not to press amendment 162 but to accept the Government amendments.

Court Closures

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The impact on my constituency of the proposals to close courts across the country has been to identify the court in Buxton for closure. This is probably the third or fourth time I have spoken on this matter, in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, since that decision. I heard what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said about timings, but I pay tribute to the Minister. He has been exemplary in his availability, transparency and consideration for individual Members. He met the hon. Lady and he met me on several occasions. There was a Westminster Hall debate, principally on the courthouse in Buxton. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) secured a similar debate, so we have all had a fair run at this.

I was strongly opposed to the closure of Buxton court. The alternative was to send everybody to Chesterfield, just because it happened to be in Derbyshire. For those Members who are not aware of the geography of Derbyshire and the High Peak, the clue is very much in the name of my constituency. Getting from Buxton to Chesterfield is not easy. Only a couple of weeks ago, the constituency had about six or seven inches of snow in a single day. It would have been practically impossible for people to get to Chesterfield—I got stuck in Bamford, which is not even as far as Chesterfield. I was very concerned about the proposals. I thought they were wrong and I said so at the time.

I will recount some of the details of the decision on Buxton, because it is important to consider this issue in context. The consultation document relating specifically to Buxton is, as I have said before, the worst consultation document I have seen in many a year, both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of my local council. It was riddled with errors, falsehoods and mistakes. There was much discussion about the document and, because I thought it was so woeful, I probably used some phraseology that Members probably ought not to use. After much discussion, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service admitted it had made some mistakes in the document, but it still pursued the same end-game and the decision has been made to close Buxton courthouse. I regret that decision, but it has been made and I do not think we can revisit it here today.

At the time, in discussions with the Minister and others on the Chesterfield issue, I looked for a compromise, politics being very much the art of compromise. I cannot welcome the decision to close Buxton court because I think it is wrong, but I will, reluctantly, accept it. The Minister listened to the points I made about the difficulties of commuting to Chesterfield. The decision was taken to keep the Stockport court open. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) is not here, but, come 2020, she may well say that she saved Stockport court. She might even flag up my contribution to saving it. Although Stockport is in a different county, it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from High Peak, as it is to get there from Macclesfield, which faces a similar challenge.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is very interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s tale. I accept what he says about the Minister, but my logical proposals for Durham, which would make travel a lot easier for my constituents, were completely dismissed and ignored. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has more power over the Minister than Opposition Members have.

[Andrew Bingham]

I am not sure how to respond to that without sounding big-headed. I do not know the ins and outs of the courts in Durham, but I felt I put forward a coherent argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

Indeed, no surprise.

Realistically in south Wales, one has to move north or south to the M4 before travelling east or west. Before reaching the M4, there are very few chances of moving east or west, so the movement of these courts will cause huge problems for people’s capacity to reach the new venues.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the consultation and decisions, certainly in County Durham, assume that everyone has access to a private car and take no account of the time it will take to get to court—or the impossibility, in some case, of doing so—by public transport?

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend makes the most valid of points. Yet again, the Government have failed to recognise the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, particularly those who are victims or witnesses of crime, and their capacity to access the justice system.

By car, the journey from Bridgend to Cardiff can take an hour. Parking is a nightmare at many times of the day and is very expensive. Port Talbot justice centre is just under 15 miles away, but, depending on where someone lives in my constituency, it can take a minimum of 30 minutes to get there by car. For people on low incomes, who disproportionately depend on court and tribunal services, access to these sites will take longer and be more expensive. Car ownership in poor communities in Wales is particularly low: two thirds of those on working-age benefits do not have daily access to a car. I hope the Minister is listening to this. The majority of people travelling from Bridgend to Cardiff or Port Talbot to access legal services will therefore depend on expensive public transport links, but the timetables are a nightmare, especially if someone has to be in court by 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock and has childcare or caring commitments or a disability or if—God forbid—they miss the bus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate? The general tone has been that no one is opposed to change, and that is where I start from. Like any other public service, the justice system and the magistrates system need to change. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the root cause of the proposals, whether we like it or not, is the attempt to save money and the small-state conservatism that the Chancellor of the Exchequer longs for. That has made the system throw up some very peculiar examples of injustice. We also have ludicrous situations such as the one the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) mentioned, where substantial investment was made in a magistrates court a year or so ago, only for it to be written off now.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said the consultation was clearly flawed, and I agree. The assumption that was made was clearly that these courts would close and that people could travel to the courts that remained open. What was not taken into consideration was the people who do not have access to cars. In my constituency, people use the magistrates court in Consett, and they were told in the public consultation that took place in the north-east that if they had to travel to Peterlee court—as they will now have to—they could go by train. Well, that would be a very circuitous route, seeing as there is no train station in Peterlee. Even if someone took another form of public transport, they would have to set off at something like 7 o’clock in the morning to get there by 9.30, and that depends on public transport being available. That also fails to recognise the rural nature of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). That has been the main flaw in the proposals.

Having spoken to the Minister, I recognise that he is committed to change, although he has a sword hanging over his head in terms of cutting costs. Like the hon. Member for High Peak, I made representations to the Minister—about the proposals for North Durham. My constituents will now have to travel to Peterlee magistrates court, which will take them more than two hours on public transport, if it is possible to use it. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham will find things even more difficult. I suggested to the Minister that it would make more sense for my constituents to travel to Newcastle or Gateshead—it would certainly be a lot quicker to get from Chester-le-Street, in my constituency, for example, to Gateshead or Newcastle magistrates court. I am also told by the local head of the Crown Prosecution Service that there is spare capacity in those two courts.

I wrote to the Minister on 25 February, and I was very disappointed this morning when I got his letter, which said that my proposal was not possible and that my constituents would still have to travel to Peterlee. That makes no sense whatever, when people can get from Chester-le-Street to Newcastle in 10 minutes on the train, as opposed to the nearly two hours it takes to get to Peterlee. I would therefore ask the Minister to look again at those proposals. I accept that the problem people have is that they will have to cross county boundaries, but my proposals will make things a lot easier for many of my constituents.

A number of Members have raised the fundamental problem with the cost-driven nature of the proposals. Access to justice is a serious issue for the magistrates service and for the dedicated individuals who give up their time to serve as magistrates. Justice is supposed to be dispensed locally, but that will not be the case in future, when people will have to travel long distances.

As I say, I am not opposed to new technology; indeed, having spent quite a lot of time recently in court—I have been doing a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust—I have spoken to the professionals, and they are not opposed to change. However, one thing they keep telling me is that there is a shortage of cash in the system. If we are going to achieve the situation I think the Minister wants to, with local video conferencing and other buildings being used, some up-front money will have to be put into the system. Otherwise, we will just settle into a situation where the cuts have been made and we keep the courts we still have—and that will be it. That would be a mistake, because in terms of dispensing local justice—the hon. Member for Torbay raised this point and it is a good one—we need to look at what goes to magistrates courts. If we are talking simply about non-violent offences and people not being sentenced to prison, their cases can be dealt with in other settings, but the cash has to be there.

My experience of visiting the Courts Service throughout the country over the last few weeks as part of my fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust has been that there is not the cash up front to do what would make sense to support the professionals and, more importantly, our constituents. Constituents will want access to justice not only if they have to go before a court, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly argued—this is sometimes forgotten in the system—if they are a victim. They need to be able to see that justice is being done, and if obstacles are put in their way, such as those relating to access to travel to a magistrates court, that will be a problem for them.

I ask the Minister to take a step back before making any commitments. If he is going to implement the other proposals, which I think he genuinely wants to do, there needs to be a timetable. Will he look again at the proposals for North Durham? It makes no sense whatsoever for people to have to travel for two hours to Peterlee to access justice, when they can travel to Newcastle in 10 minutes. I do not think that the people who drew up this consultation looked at the local geography, and I think they assumed that everyone had access to a car. Not everyone in my rural constituency has access to a car, and public transport is intermittent. If that puts an obstacle in the way of them getting justice, I have to say that, in a modern and rich society such as ours, that is a scandal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, but if he had a little experience of business, he would know that in a four-year programme with such a huge sum of money involved, the figures might not be as precise as he would like them to be at the initial stage.

An important aspect of testing and evaluation will be to ensure that any hearings held outside a traditional court offer appropriate levels of security for members of the public, the judiciary, and court staff. Travel time was mentioned by a number of people, and there must be a fundamental recognition that far fewer people will have to travel to courts in the first place. We intend to use modern technology, and video conferencing facilities are already available. The hon. Member for Neath asked whether those have been tested in any way, but we already have such facilities—for example, there is a community centre in Wales that is used to give evidence.

We already have alternative places to use as courts, and employment tribunal cases have been conducted on oil rigs in the North sea. Only yesterday, a lawyer colleague of ours who joined the House after the election last year told me about probation cases that she had been involved in that were held in public houses.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I note what the Minister is saying about new technology and I do not disagree with him, but will he look again at my North Durham constituency, because it is nonsense when people can travel to Gateshead or Newcastle in 10 or 15 minutes, as opposed to travelling to Peterlee? I have raised the issue previously with the Minister and asked him to reconsider, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mr Vara]

There comes a point when we have to start taking decisions and agree to disagree. This whole programme started before last year’s summer recess, and we had a lengthy consultation period. I have had numerous debates and met more people in the House than I can remember. There has been a huge dialogue, but there must be some recognition that we have listened and made changes in a huge number of cases. That may not be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about the effectiveness of the administration process that will see this programme through. I will be keeping a sharp eye on proceedings, and if he has any concerns about his local area, I will be more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at local level, so that he has the comfort he wants.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke of the wonderful work that magistrates do in our courts. I can only echo those comments and say that many magistrates recognise the need for reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the very useful work of the Justice Committee and brought his own expertise to the House. He also questioned the reliability of the IT projects we will be undertaking. I emphasise that we are taking a staged approach. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket and we are bringing in expert advice from outside to assist us.

Policing and Crime Bill (Third sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

I urge the Minister to consider amendment 169 properly and not simply to dismiss it with the “not invented here” approach that is far too common in this House. Given that he wants to keep this country as safe as possible when major incidents occur, I ask him to accept the amendment as a positive contribution to enabling him to do just that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Amendment 156 is a probing amendment; I will not divide the Committee on it. As I said on Second Reading, I welcome what the Government are doing through the Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983, in particular ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not end up in police cells. I have a little bit of sympathy for the police in terms of how they deal with such individuals. The police are not the appropriate people to deal with those in mental health crisis, but sadly they are sometimes the only ones available. The dedication of our policemen and women is such that they will not turn away people in that type of crisis. The purpose of my amendment is to probe whether we can get more collaboration between the police, the health service and other agencies, including local government.

In February 2014, the mental health concordat was agreed between the third sector, the police, local authorities and the NHS. It is important to read the joint statement, which states:

“We commit to work together to improve the system of care and support so people in crisis because of a mental health condition are kept safe and helped to find the support they need—whatever the circumstances in which they first need help—and from whichever service they turn to first.

We will work together, and with local organisations, to prevent crises happening whenever possible through prevention and early intervention. We will make sure we meet the needs of vulnerable people in urgent situations. We will strive to make sure that all relevant public services support someone who appears to have a mental health problem to move towards Recovery.

Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”

I accept that there is no statutory basis for the concordat, which is a problem, but I think it is important to draw the Committee’s attention to the final sentence of the joint statement:

“Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”

Well, currently there is no mechanism by which those organisations—I am not criticising any individual—are held accountable for delivering what they promised in the concordat. There is a desperate need for that.

The concordat’s aims are very good. I have seen some very good examples of joint working between all services, including the police, fire service, ambulance service, NHS and local authorities up and down the country. There are examples of mental health professionals being co-located with police officers and triage teams, and that is certainly working very well. In my local NHS trust, community psychiatric nurses are appointed in A&E because, unfortunately, A&E is one of the places to which people in mental health crisis turn because they are unable to get help elsewhere—even though, as everyone knows, that is the last place they need to be. Having a mental health professional has clearly helped in my local hospital by ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not sit around for hours on end getting no form of treatment.

I accept that this is not necessarily just a police problem; it cuts across other Departments including Health. The amendment questions whether we can use the Bill to put the concordat on to some type of statutory basis and to provide for a presumption that local authorities and others should work together locally to deliver the concordat’s aims, to which most people would sign up. Is the amendment about money? No, it is not. Properly implemented, it could save money. Time that the police spend dealing with people in mental health crisis is time that they are not spending doing other things that they are perhaps better qualified to do. Perhaps the Minister could look at this issue and talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health, so that on Report we can have an indication of how this operation could be enforceable. I do not think that it should fall solely on the shoulders of the police.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this crucial issue. He makes the point about police time. The Oleaster centre in Birmingham, a collaborative venture between the NHS, the police and the local authority, has seen the average police time spent on a section 136 incident reduced from 14 hours to five hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a powerful argument, regarding not just appropriate treatment of those suffering from mental illness, but the efficient use of police time, for having such facilities nationwide? What he proposes would be very helpful towards that end.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do. The example to which my hon. Friend refers is replicated in other parts of the country where the police have in many cases taken the lead, working jointly with the NHS to set up those facilities. They make the experience better for those individuals who are in crisis. As he rightly says, they provide a more efficient way to deal with police time. Without a provision to enable this, I fear we will do all the work in the Bill on changes to the Mental Health Act 1983, which I welcome, but end up saying, “This is what we want to happen but will it happen in practice?” The example in his constituency shows that where there is a will and local drive, this can happen. My fear is that we will get a patchwork quilt of provision across the country. It would be helpful if we could make co-operation to deal with these issues statutory. I will come to another point later when we talk to amendments relating to the Mental Health Act.

I commend the Government’s aim to prevent people in mental health crisis from going to police cells. However, unless there is alternative provision in place, that will not happen. The need to monitor what happens to individuals should be recognised. If we reach the point, which we all want, of having no one in police cells, but without the people concerned getting adequate care elsewhere, we will have failed them. I will address that point later. I am now interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Mike Penning]

I say at the outset that I understand the intention and good will behind the amendments. I put my hand up to a typo where “and” appears instead of “or”, which will be corrected later.

I say to the shadow Minister that the duty in clause 2 would be subject to the restriction in clause 3. Clause 3(1) sets aside the duty to enter into a particular collaboration agreement if that agreement would negatively impact on efficiency or effectiveness. Therefore, the Bill specifically addresses the point she raised. I will not dwell on that because it is not a matter of semantics. She is quite right, but clause 3 addresses that.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As Police Minister, I cannot mandate the rest of the Government. However, if we did not have the provisions in the Bill to say that we are not going to keep people who are mentally ill or going through a mental health episode in our cells, it would carry on as it always has under previous Governments and under ours. Someone has to say stop and the Home Secretary has said enough is enough. They will have to bring that capacity forward. We have fewer section 136s and 135s and a lot fewer of the cases that I used to experience, when people who were ill were taken to a place of safety in the back of a police vehicle. I once saw someone taken in the cage of a police riot van. It was completely inappropriate and it has to stop with us, with the police saying, “We are not the first port of call; we are the last port call. We will come, but we are not the first port of call.”

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the Minister’s point. Our amendments are the grit in the oyster, in the sense that they are going to force others to improve facilities. Having seen different Departments when in government, I know that without some direction from the Bill, it will not happen. The Minister and his colleagues have great intentions and I pay tribute to him and to the Home Secretary for addressing this issue, but without something on the face of the Bill or some movement during the passage of the Bill, it will not happen.

[Mike Penning]

Nothing would happen if we were not doing this. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. We are starting to drive this. An inter-ministerial group on that specific issue was formed during the last Government. It still sits and it will push on with this. I do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right vehicle, but I agree that we must push it forward. Otherwise, the health and social services will be knocking at the door, saying, “We’ve got nowhere else to go,” as we often hear.

I used to experience that when I was in the fire service, and it still goes on. I have been stationed with the police when it has happened. It is usually at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon. Social services phone up saying, “We haven’t seen Mary or Johnny. Would you go round and check on them over the weekend?” The answer must be “No, that is your legal responsibility, not ours.” I know that that is a development of what we were talking about, but it is exactly what goes on: “Would you go in and open up for them?”. It is a difficult area, but one that we must touch on.

--- Later in debate ---

To be fair to the Minister and the Government, they appear to partially recognise that danger, given that they provide a series of qualifications exempting NHS ambulance trusts from entering into collaboration agreements. For example, clause 3(2)(a) states that NHS ambulance trusts do not have to enter into agreements if those agreements would have an adverse effect on their ability to exercise their emergency functions. Will the Minister tell us why the police force and the fire service have not been provided with analogous safeguards?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, as these things are already happening. In my local area in Durham, the fire and rescue service works closely with the police and ambulance services, particularly in co-location of appliances. For example, in Barnard Castle, which is in a rural area, the ambulance, fire, police and mountain rescue services work together, which improves the service but saves money for the estate.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of my visit to Durham fire and rescue service. I was really impressed by what they were doing. They were clearly cash-strapped, but went out to maximise their impact and save money where they could by collaboration. Their most important focus was on saving lives and improving services to the local area, and I was very impressed.

The clause gives the impression that under this Government there is a hierarchy of services, and that the fire service is the equivalent of Lepidus—that is, the least in the triumvirate. That is from Shakespeare’s “Antony and Cleopatra”—I did it at A-level. The Opposition believe that collaboration between the emergency services is a good thing. Providing the funds to encourage and support collaboration, and giving an opportunity to evaluate the collaboration and disseminate good practice, are essential. Providing an institutional framework for supporting further collaboration has some merit, but it is likely to be superfluous and I honestly believe that there are dangers in making that mandatory. Local experts, who understand their service and their local needs, are best placed to make final decisions about collaboration—just as they have been doing effectively over the past few years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I echo the points made by my hon. Friend? This is actually happening on the ground. As a former Minister, I have seen close up the tendency of this Government to think that all the pearls of wisdom are contained within Whitehall, when clearly they are not. As my hon. Friend says, in many cases this is being driven by cost. County Durham and Darlington fire and rescue service, whose budget has been cut by the Government, has had to look at new ways of delivering services. However, the driver has not just been cost; it is also the recognition that, working together, ambulance, police, fire—and, in this case, mountain rescue—services can deliver a better service for the public. That public sector ethos is alive and kicking in my local area, where the public come first in terms of the service they give. If they can do things to improve that, it is all the better.

What would the Minister judge as collaboration? I accept that he might want to give examples of where that is not happening and the reasons why. In Durham, we have tri-responders: the police, fire and ambulance services. In a large rural county such as Durham it is not possible to have a physical presence from all three services in all areas, and they have worked together very closely. That has been driven not just by the police and crime commissioner but by other services working together.

What would be an example of failure? The Bill talks about co-operation, but to what level? Is this about the response to incidents? There are good examples of the co-location of services. In County Durham, it is not just about ensuring that we get more efficient use of estates. Things such as open days and the provision of public information, including to schools, are now being done on a joint basis by the police and fire. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the incidents that affect many of our constituents are not just pigeonholed as requiring a police response, a fire response or an ambulance response. Those things are working very well, so I would like to know what will be achieved with this measure. Can the Minister point to examples of where that is not happening and, if it is not happening, has he examined why? I have outlined the great work being done in County Durham. What would the Minister see as failure or as not meeting the co-operation target? Is he laying down from Whitehall, as seems to be the tendency of this Government, a framework that local PCCs and fire authorities have to meet if they are to meet this test? I think that, without that, what happens in different areas will be pretty arbitrary.

I represent quite a rural constituency in County Durham, although the Government have not recognised Durham as a rural county in their local government funding settlements, possibly because it votes Labour rather than Conservative. Responses that work in London may not work in rural areas such as County Durham. Providing the flexibility to allow local fire chiefs, local fire authorities, PCCs and the NHS to collaborate on what works best locally would be the right approach. If the Minister tries to direct from Whitehall a template that each area has to adopt, it will not work.

[Mike Penning]

I will not detain the Committee long. I think that there were three main questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The Opposition do not believe that the Government have even begun to make the case for the fundamental governance reforms to the fire and rescue service that would be introduced by clause 6, so we will vote to remove it, and consequential schedule 1, from the Bill.

Clause 6 and schedule 1 contain provisions that allow for a police and crime commissioner to become a fire and rescue authority and, in so doing, effectively assume control of a fire and rescue service. I will have plenty to say in later debates about the lopsided process by which the Government are proposing that these takeovers should happen, and what the governance and scrutiny of the fire and rescue service would look like once the takeovers have gone ahead, but I will take this opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal in the first place.

I know that that is not the way the Government think things should be done. They have been quite happy to go through a consultation exercise that does not ask stakeholders what they think of the merits of the proposals, and they have completely ignored the recommendation of Sir Ken Knight that these proposals need to be put through a rigorous pilot programme so that we can know whether they are likely to bring about any benefits.

It was not really a consultation, was it? It was stuffed full of leading questions that were not about whether the plans were right or about what should be done, but about how to implement them. The Government have ignored the evidence-based strategy suggested by Sir Ken. Why did the Government not undertake a pilot, as recommended by the Knight review? Why not undertake a proper risk assessment and outline the implications of the plans, alongside those of the budget cuts that are now starting to take effect and affect response times? The Government have acted on the assumption that it is a given that police and crime commissioners will get powers to take over the fire and rescue services. Why is that reasonable? They need to present arguments as to why that is a good idea. In whose interest is it? It is not right simply to propose reforms to a vital public service without producing a detailed set of arguments as to why those reforms are in the best interests of that service and the public.

Government impact assessments always start with the same two questions: “What is the problem under consideration?” and “Why is Government intervention necessary?” Those are two very conservative questions: if there is no evidence that something is not working as well as it should or that there is a problem that needs to be solved, the Government simply do not have reason to act. They should certainly not be legislating for its own sake. If the problem is London, legislate on London.

There is absolutely nothing in the impact assessment identifying tangible problems with the governance of the fire service, nor is there any attempt to explain why the legislation is necessary. The only relevant reason in the impact assessment is the fact that the Conservative manifesto pledged to “develop the role” of police and crime commissioners. Why is that? What did the fire service do to deserve this? It is an extraordinary way to go about the business of government. I am not surprised that civil servants at the Home Office could not come up with any tangible reasons why PCCs need to play a role in the governance of the fire and rescue service; there are plenty of reasons to think it is a bad idea.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Although the clause refers to the fire and rescue service, it does not refer to ambulance services, for example. Does my hon. Friend agree that PCCs adopting ambulance services is a logical conclusion, if they are to encompass all the emergency services in an area?

[Lyn Brown]

I can only imagine that the Home Office lost the argument with the Department of Health. That is the only thing that comes to mind. The Home Office wanted a big takeover for PCCs, but it has failed to do so because the Department of Health said no.

PCCs are a nascent institution. With suitable caution, the Home Affairs Committee has said that it is

“too early to say whether the introduction of police and crime commissioners has been a success.”

If we do not know whether PCCs have been a success in their core duties, why are the Government proposing that they expand their portfolio by adopting fire services? We all hope that the turnout for PCC elections in May is better than the 15% managed the first time round, but before we hand over more powers to PCCs, would it not be better to see whether public support and interest in the institution has improved from such a dismally low level?

The Government may see things differently and want to bolster the powers and budgets of PCCs to help them through their difficult start, but a vital public service such as fire should not be pawned off to save struggling Whitehall inventions. What is next? Stretched NHS ambulance trusts running community volunteering schemes to rekindle the big society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I totally and utterly agree with my hon. Friend. I think the Minister has done this Committee a disservice by not answering our questions properly. I urge him to get back on his feet and give us a much more reasonable and considered answer to the points that we have made.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. This is a habit of the Minister. On Second Reading, he gave a 15-minute—or even less—response to the debate, and we saw that again today. I thought the purpose of Committee was to scrutinise legislation and for the Government to argue their case for the Bill. That is not what we have seen today. I wonder whether you can give some guidance to the Minister. He needs to answer questions or even put a case for his proposals.

[The Chair]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the Minister’s response. He is responsible for his own response, so I will not allow the matter to go any further.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The Opposition do not believe that the case has been made for PCCs to govern the fire and rescue services. I think that after the debate we have just had, a case is sadly wanting.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It would be nice to hear the case for why PCCs should take over fire and rescue services, because we have failed to hear that from the Minister.

[Lyn Brown]

We have indeed failed yet again to hear a case from the Minister as to why this massive change to how our public services are run is to happen. I really am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity in the previous debate to give us some decent reasons. But there are none—simply because of one obscure line in the Conservative party manifesto, the Government want to boost the role of PCCs. That is a really poor reason.

However, if the Government intend to go down that path and the reforms are to happen, the Bill could be strengthened if the Government accepted the amendments. They would make significant changes to the process by which a PCC can take over, and to the structures of accountability and scrutiny that they face once they have taken charge of the local fire service.

Amendment 174 would ensure that the Secretary of State could approve a takeover only if it was in the best interests of public safety and efficiency. The schedule currently requires it to be in the best interests of only one or the other. Amendment 181 would require a police and crime commissioner to pay the costs incurred by a fire and rescue authority in preparing information for a takeover bid.

Amendments 170, 171 and 172 all deal with the consultation process. Amendment 170 would require full consideration of people’s views. Amendment 171 would restrict the scope of the consultation to residents who are served by the relevant fire and rescue service. Amendment 172 would make workers and fire and rescue authorities statutory consultees. Amendment 180 would ensure that the panel the Home Secretary used to guide her through a business case was genuinely independent.

Amendments 173, 177 and 178 all deal with who must consent before a takeover can be approved. Amendment 173 would require the consent of local authorities, and amendment 177 would require local people to approve a takeover by a referendum. We have offered a compromise in amendment 178, which would require the approval of either the local authority or the local people. Either way, there must be local consent through a referendum or through the locally elected representatives.

I have outlined a lot of issues, but then again, there are a lot of problems with the Government’s proposals. I shall start with amendment 174 and the grounds on which the Home Secretary is to make her decisions, before I address the process. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State does not allow PCCs to take over control of a fire and rescue service unless it is in the interests of public safety. I tabled it because, as currently drafted, the Bill states that when the Secretary of State decides whether to allow a fire and rescue service to come under the control of a PCC, she must do so

“in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness…or…in the interests of public safety”.

The amendment is small, but its impact would be substantial. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making her decision on whether to allow a fire and rescue service to come under the control of a PCC solely in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, to ensure that it is also in the interests of public safety. Who could possibly object to that? As the Minister is in one of his collaborative moods, I expect that he will accept the amendment with gusto, because he will want to ensure that the interests of public safety are truly served.

I know I have made these arguments before, but it is really important to make our arguments as we go through the Bill, so I shall do so again, albeit briefly. The decision to allow PCCs to take over fire and rescue services must not be allowed to become a trade-off between economy, efficiency and effectiveness on the one hand and the interests of public safety on the other. If PCCs are to take over fire and rescue services, the interests of public safety should be paramount. There should be no other interest—certainly not the Conservative party manifesto.

Under the existing proposals, if the takeover is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, that is enough to satisfy the Secretary of State’s requirements. That is simply not good enough for the fire service, and it is certainly not good enough for the general public. I am glad to see that the Government have recognised that consideration must be given to both efficiency and effectiveness, but I am concerned that they have once again misunderstood the meaning of efficiency. I reiterate that Sir Ken Knight stated:

“Efficiency does not just mean doing the same for less, nor is it just about one-off cashable savings. It is an entire approach to service delivery, achieving the best possible service for the public.”

I would hope all of us in this room can agree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say, and I hope he will give the Committee what it needs—a proper Government response, explaining the reasons for what they are doing in the Bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are arguing that local people should have a say in electing a police and crime commissioner, while at the same time they are giving the Secretary of State powers to impose on an area a set of arrangements in which local people would have no say at all? It is another example of the Government looking both ways—they talk about devolution, but now they are talking about centralisation.

[Lyn Brown]

That is absolutely right. It is not a localist agenda at all.

Amendment 181 would require a police and crime commissioner to pay the costs incurred by a fire and rescue authority in preparing information for a takeover bid. The Bill places a statutory duty on the PCC and fire and rescue authority to work together in the preparation of a takeover proposal, although not as equal partners. The process is to be led by PCCs, and the fire and rescue authorities will merely be duty-bound to co-operate. The amendment is intended to clarify who will pay the costs of preparing the proposal.

Ensuring that proposals are put together to the desired standard when putting forward the case for PCC takeover of fire and rescue authorities will of course take time, and providing the information needed to prepare a proposal will inevitably carry a cost. The costs include everything from staffing and research costs to stationery and paperwork. Paragraph 2 of proposed new schedule A1, which schedule 1 would add to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, sets out that a fire and rescue authority must provide information and documentation at a PCC’s request. That makes it clear that the application process could easily prove very costly to a fire and rescue authority.

The schedule places duties on fire and rescue authorities, but gives them no powers in return. For example, while a fire and rescue authority must co-operate with a PCC and provide him or her with documentation and support, the fire and rescue authority is given no corresponding powers whatever in return. I find that quite astonishing. Fire and rescue authorities have a legal responsibility to oversee the strategic direction and policy of their local fire service. How can they possibly carry out that duty if they are not even allowed to ask for documentation on staffing, finance and plans from the person who plans to take over the fire and rescue service?

In response to the Government’s proposed process, amendment 181 would place responsibility on the PCC to pay the costs incurred in producing a takeover proposal. There are two good reasons for that. First, as the PCC is actively seeking to take over responsibility for the fire and rescue authority, it is fair that those costs fall on them. Secondly, PCCs have larger budgets than fire and rescue authorities. They are therefore presumably better staffed and better able to absorb costs. If PCCs are not to be responsible for the costs, the Government need to work out how they will fund what could be a fairly costly process, especially when our fire and rescue services are under the cosh from spending cuts.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I know that this issue will be considered later, because the Government have tabled amendments on it, but if we are to get a full idea of efficiency, one of the tricky areas is unpicking fire authorities’ budgets. To give an example, in Northumberland one PCC covers two fire authorities. One, Tyne and Wear, raises its fire budget by precept and the other is part of the county council. Does my hon. Friend recognise that unpicking those budgets will be a hugely expensive exercise?

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why East and West Sussex fire authorities failed to merge when both wanted to do so—it was impossible to unpick one of their budgets, and the Government were demanding back £2 million of the local authority’s money. That completely floored the opportunity to do something that both fire and rescue authorities wanted. They could not do it because it was too expensive.

The other point I would make to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, is that many of the fire and rescue services that are integrated within a local authority structure have already found back-office cost savings. Their emergency services departments are fully integrated into the fire service. If fire services are dragged out and given to the PCC, that will have a massive cost for many of those local authorities, which will find themselves short in the pocket, just like in the case of the East and West Sussex merger.

Perhaps more presciently, being given responsibility to pay the costs of any takeover may stop police and crime commissioners from using the risk of cost escalation as a means of coercing fire and rescue authorities to support their takeover bid. The Government’s proposal is a recipe for hostile takeovers. We can imagine a situation arising under the Bill where a PCC requests that a fire and rescue authority produce a constantly escalating amount of information and documentation. As it does so, costs will spiral for the fire and rescue authority, possibly to saturation point. There may come a time when the fire and rescue authority decides it is no longer viable to continue paying such costs simply for the creation of a proposal and agrees to a takeover in order to stop haemorrhaging funds. The Government have been worried about the use of freedom of information requests as a deliberate tactic to burden public institutions, so they should be receptive to my argument and the picture I am painting.

Amendment 181 would take away PCCs’ ability to abuse their power, but it would also take away any fire and rescue authority’s suspicion that that might be happening. That would not only avoid PCCs coercing fire and rescue authorities but make fire and rescue authorities more receptive to working together with PCCs in putting together proposals. It would help to mitigate any conflict of interest. If the Minister is truly interested in collaboration between our emergency services—frankly, I doubt it—he ought to support it.

The amendment would solve two problems. It would clear up the ambiguity around who will pay for costs incurred in putting together proposals and help to mitigate the potential for hostile takeovers by PCCs when the fire and rescue authority—