Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). I hope you will not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I mark the 50th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in a couple of sentences and pay tribute to those residents in Torquay— particularly in Chelston, in my constituency—who offered their homes up in hospitality, to give people not only somewhere to go but respite away from the scene where so many people had lost the lives. A plaque commemorates that to this day at Torre abbey.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) on bringing the Bill to the House. Whatever the outcome of today’s debate, we saw the major change announced by the Government yesterday, which will finally see people viewed as innocent, and show that they were not committing a criminal offence as we would know it today.

In his introduction, the hon. Gentleman talked about how, when he was born, these things were a criminal offence. However, even when I was born, it was still a criminal offence in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be who you are. It took until 1982, quite shamefully— 15 years after decriminalisation in England—for similar provisions finally to come into effect in Northern Ireland. Some territories that fly our flag—maybe not the SNP’s flag—still had laws of this nature as recently as the 1990s. It almost beggars belief that people still thought these things.

We could look back through history at a whole range of offences that, nowadays, we would say are not offences. For example, we do not believe that there is anyone in our constituencies today who is practising as a witch and trying to make someone ill. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps we might be getting a few spells cast here today. Let us be clear: such convictions were patent nonsense—people were sent to the gallows for something that was absolute nonsense and that was based on fear and hysteria. The difference with these offences is that people are gay or lesbian—that is who they are—but, in the past, that would have been a criminal offence. The laws we are referring to, under which people were still being convicted not that long ago—some of those people are still alive—were passed only 20 or so years after the death penalty had been removed in this country. That is why, for me, having such a pardon makes eminent sense.

I have felt a bit in today’s debate that we are dancing on the head of a pin, to be blunt. We have the argument that a pardon should be given, but that it will be replicated only on criminal records checks, which are the key part of this, on application, versus the argument that a pardon should be granted after removal from criminal record checks. I think we would all agree that criminal record checks have to be absolutely accurate—I say that having listened to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. I have therefore found some of the argument on both sides rather interesting in terms of the actual nub of this issue.

Likewise, having heard both arguments, and having got a copy of the Bill, I think there is no suggestion from anyone that what is still a criminal offence today should not remain on someone’s record; the debate is how we get where we want. I very much welcome the fact that the Government’s amendment to the Bill that is already in the Lords and that is due to come back here in the not-too-distant future will probably be the quickest way of getting there.

We need to be clear that nobody is suggesting that someone should be able to go around claiming that they would have been innocent of an offence that would still be an offence to this day. That is particularly the case where we have more modern legislation in relation to those in positions of authority over those aged 16 or 17. Quite bizarrely, given all the hysteria around the impact on younger boys, there was not actually any legislation back in the 1950s that made it an offence for a teacher to be a predator towards a 16 or 17-year-old student of the opposite sex. To be fair to the then Labour Government, it made eminent sense that, when changing the age of consent, that anomaly was righted. It was equally as bad for a 30 or 40-year-old teacher to prey on a member of the opposite sex as on someone of their own sex. The issue was their using their position to abuse someone, not the type of relationship involved. It is also about looking back into the past. Some people would ask, “Why apply it to offences beyond 1967?”, but we all realise that there were offences before 1967.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who sadly is not in his place, talked about the police’s reactions and behaviour. Peter Tatchell’s book, interestingly, says that in some cases there were more prosecutions after 1967 than there had been before, because some forces recognised that the pre-1967 legislation was from another era, and the enforcement of it was mixed and variable. In the mid-1940s, during world war two, there was almost a policy of discreetly ignoring things on the basis that it was seen as helpful, most famously in the case of Alan Turing, to use people’s skills in the fight for freedom. Then in the 1950s, there were moves to take that freedom away by prosecuting them for historical offences. It makes sense to look not just at those who were convicted on the law pre-1967 but those who were convicted up until very recently on the basis of different laws. It should also be remembered that there is still on the statute book a bar on gay men serving in the merchant navy. I believe there is a private Member’s Bill that we will discuss on a future Friday to remove that, but it is sad to note that there are still parts of our legislation that contain these types of historical provisions.

Where we have got to today reflects the changing attitudes of society. I openly admit that I had a major change of attitude when I went to university. At secondary school, like a lot of people, I fell for some of the prejudiced arguments and it was all about what the group thought. When I got to university, for the first time I was with people who were out, saying who they were and being proud of it. The president of Warwick University’s Pride society had a chat with me at the time when the debate was going on about section 28. He said, “I should be a Conservative.” I said, “Really?” He said, “Yeah, I believe in freedom of choice. You believe in freedom of choice, Kevin. Your party does, up until when I make the choice about who I want to love, and you argue against. I can choose whether I want a pension, I can choose what house I buy, what kind of life I have, and whether I have children, yet I can’t choose who I love.” That, for me, was quite a transformative moment. It was such a logical argument—I had that choice, so why should they not have it? Some people know that my partner is a little older than I am. I have the right to choose that—there has never been an offence in law against it—so why should it be an offence for anyone else to choose whom they love, provided that they are both of the age where they can make an informed and mutual choice and give consent?

Sometimes we hear the religious argument—I am a practising Christian; I sometimes help to administer the elements at my church—that was regularly used to justify the laws of the past. Yet there is a law in the ten commandments about adultery, which is described as a sin, but has never been a criminal offence.

[John Nicolson]

There is also in Deuteronomy a ruling against mixed fabrics, but to the best of my knowledge we do not publicly stone people for mixing rayon and wool.

[Kevin Foster]

There is another part about the appropriate price for slaves that is found in another part of it. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the homophobes and prejudiced individuals in some parts of the United States who commonly like to have tattooed on their bodies a particular part of Leviticus about how certain things are an abomination, forgetting the bit in Leviticus that describes tattooing the skin as a sin. It is a delicious irony that they are so blinded by their prejudice that they have not even bothered to read the rest of that book of the Bible. They do not know the sheer irony of what they are doing and how they are showing their total and utter ignorance when they have a tattoo like that on their body. It has been hundreds of years since we had the idea that religious belief should be enforced by political power. Therefore the argument used in the past seems completely incoherent.

The Wolfenden committee concluded that offences in relation to homosexuality were victimless crimes. No one had complained, both sides were happy to take part, and nobody’s rights had been infringed—it was just that other people were so prejudiced about someone making that choice that they thought it should be a criminal offence, with truly ridiculous penalties given that nobody had gone to the police to say, “I’ve been harmed.” All too often, this became a way of blackmailing people—of threatening to go and dob someone in. Shamefully, even until the 1990s the military police were still dealing in that sort of behaviour. I remember when I was growing up, as a teenager, there was an episode of “A Touch of Frost” based on the idea that someone could be blackmailed for their whole career on the basis of whether they are gay. That was absolutely shameful. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire rightly mentioned what was said at that time, including by some members of my party who were in government. John Major did the right thing in terms of the foreign service, but we did the wrong thing in not admitting people to the armed forces. The arguments that were advanced were patently stuff and nonsense. It is pleasing that in the United States President Obama is finally abandoning “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, because it was a load of nonsense—the idea that people sharing a shower is fine as long as they do not tell anyone. That was a symbolic change and a move forward.

I am in a slight quandary. It is welcome that we have a Government who are prepared to move on this, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. I certainly will not oppose the Bill because that would be ridiculous. The Bill and the Government’s amendment both deal with the practical effects, which is the key concern. That said, amendment is almost certainly the quickest way to get this on to the statute book and finally give people a chance to—I will not say to clear their name, because they are not criminals; they are innocent. All they have done is to be who they are. I find the idea of clearing their name quite strange.

[Chris Bryant]

I broadly sympathise with the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Government’s measure does not do the same thing. The only way to achieve the same thing is to send the Bill into Committee.

[Kevin Foster]

Ultimately, though, we are debating the criminal records. The Bill refers to a blanket pardon, but it only takes effect in terms of someone getting their name off the criminal records, via an application, and the Government’s idea is that their name is got off the criminal records and then they get a formal pardon. That is the fundamental difference. I accept that this could be addressed in Committee. However, after a couple of hours’ debate we all agree with the sentiment and the principle; we are dancing around on a pin.

[Mr Gyimah]

The key difference is that the Government want some safeguards around the pardon for the living. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about some people with great moral fibre, but the Government want to protect against the situation where, if there is a blanket pardon, someone who had not been pardoned could go around saying that they had. What does one say to the victims of that person if it was non-consensual sex in that case?

[Kevin Foster]

With respect to the Minister, anyone could go around making a claim that they had been pardoned for an offence; it is the position in the criminal records that makes the key difference.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will take one more intervention but I am very conscious of time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have 12 more speakers and the Front Benchers to get in as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I hear what the shadow Minister is saying. To be fair to the Minister, he has gone further than anyone has in the last 50 years towards pardoning people, so I am loth to criticise him. As I have said, I will not oppose the Bill, because that would be the wrong step. I will, however, probably find myself abstaining, because I think that the Government are offering something that will make a difference. I say to the Minister that anyone can claim to have been pardoned, but the criminal record checks are the final determinant. I do not think that anyone on either side of the argument is contending that those decisions should be changed unless someone proves that they did not commit a criminal offence.

Ultimately, we are talking about people who never committed an offence; all that they did was to be who they were. It is unfortunate that we have ended up arguing so strongly over minor points.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

The Government led the world on human rights before the Human Rights Act and will do so afterwards.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

T5. Too many prisoners enter and leave prison without qualifications. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that prisoners get recognised qualifications in prison, so that they can have a second chance and a second career when they leave jail?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that there should be progression. Many prisoners secure level 1 or 2 qualifications, but we want to ensure that they can go on to pursue either apprenticeships or, in some cases, even degrees.

Court Closures

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It reinforces my argument that without a plan—a proven and tested plan—the Government simply cannot rely on advances in technology to substitute for the closure of physical facilities.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that the whole point of a system of magistrates courts is that local people make decisions about local crimes? Fundamentally, without a proper plan, magistrates may be drawn from areas surrounding the surviving courts, while many communities will provide no magistrates whatsoever.

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the long tradition in this country involving the justice system and the locality it serves.

I will turn to some of the specific concerns that have been raised about the consequences of the closures. The first is the straightforward issue of physical access to a court building for those who need to attend court either for a court hearing or to instigate an administrative procedure, such as applying in person for a stay of eviction. The Government response to the consultation says:

“It will still be the case that…97% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car.”

This statement is simply not true. The data on which the Government response is based relate to the travel time between court buildings, not the travel time from residents’ homes to what will now be their closest court. On the basis of these data, residents who currently live within an hour of an existing court may now have to travel a further hour beyond that court to access their nearest court. It is time for the Government to undertake and publish an analysis of the physical accessibility of courts in terms of the journey times faced by residents on a postcode basis, not from court to court, so that the impact of the closures plan can be properly understood and scrutinised.

The second problem with the travel time data is that they rely too much on the private car as a mode of transport. Only half of households on low incomes own a car. Many of my constituents who have to attend court in relation to issues such as housing evictions are on low incomes, and the same is true across the country. The response to the consultation does not consider in any detail the accessibility of courts and tribunals by public transport, or accessibility by bus, which is often the only mode of transport that residents on lower incomes can afford, even where faster routes are available. I have looked at the travel times that residents from parts of my constituency—for example, a victim of domestic violence—will experience after Lambeth county court closes and they have to travel to Wandsworth, where some of the services will be provided. Many of those residents will face a journey of at least an hour each way by bus, and in the worst-case scenario, a four-hour round trip. That is in London, which has the best public transport network of any city in the UK. Colleagues who represent rural constituencies tell me that in some cases the journey times that their constituents will face are such that it will not be possible to travel to court and back in a single day, further adding to the costs of accessing justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. Given the impact of this decision on Torquay, I was pleased that, as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I was able to vote for this debate.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I was obviously disappointed with the decision to close Torquay magistrates court. He will be aware that the court has provided local justice for many years. Concerns were raised by the police and many others about the closure. As was mentioned in the opening speech, we are talking about not just people answering charges who will need to go elsewhere, but witnesses, victims and all the others who are associated with the cases that are heard before a local magistrates court.

For me, a magistrates court has always been about local people sitting in judgment on local crimes—they might be matters that irritate local communities. In Crown courts, more emphasis is placed on the law overall, as the offences tend to require sentences with a greater focus on deterrence. The judge will also be more concerned that precedents are correctly followed in terms of sentencing people for the crimes that they have committed.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Last week, when we were examining the value-for-money issue in the criminal justice system, we considered the long-term plan for the courts estate. What brings that into focus in my constituency is the money that was spent over the past few years on Torquay magistrates court, not least the £111,000 spent last year on installing new windows. I accepted the argument that people did not wish to prejudge a closure decision, but it is quite clear that we should have a long-term plan. Where a court might be one selected for closure, it is obvious that there needs to be some restrictions on the amount of money being spent on it. The court is a welcome facility, but to see £600,000 spent on it in the years before it is due to close is almost a criminal waste of cash. Although I accept that Torquay magistrates court is a good facility, we do need to have a long-term asset plan for our courts estate to ensure that the investment that is to go into the wider network is targeted at those buildings in the best way possible. We do not want to find ourselves in a year or two’s time debating buildings, which had investment as part of this programme, being proposed for closure as part of another programme. For me, there is a wider decision to be made than that to do with bricks, mortar and buildings. We must consider what type of cases are heard and in areas such as Torbay, which will now be without a magistrates court, what type of offences can be dealt with in alternative settings and locations.

For many offences tried in magistrates courts the prospect of custody is next to nil, short of the person treating the court with contempt, so I would like to see a long-term strategy for how to work with local authorities, particularly those with suitable buildings—council chambers or committee meetings rooms—that could be used for hearings in which there is no prospect of custody. That could be cases such as those who fail to pay for a TV licence. It would be far more sensible for those people not to make a long journey. The same argument might apply to cases that have been irritating to a local community but where there is no prospect of custody. Such cases would benefit from being heard in that community rather than being shipped away.

There is an allied discussion to be had about what we send to courts. I remember from my time in charge of finance at a local authority that council tax is one of the few debts that is still enforced through the threat of imprisonment. I accept that it is almost unheard of for someone to be committed to prison for not paying their council tax, but the collection of that tax still goes through a magistrates court whereas every other debt that might be owed to a local authority, apart from business rates, will be collected via the county court system. I remember that we had to have two teams, one pursuing someone for a debt they owed on our commercial refuse collection service, for example, and the other pursuing them through the magistrates court for the collection of business rates.

The situation is obviously different when people wilfully set out to defraud the system. When they put a lie on a form or claim that they live on their own when they do not, that is clearly a matter of fraud that should be dealt with in the criminal courts. I urge the Government, in reforming our court process, to consider what type of cases are ending up in magistrates courts, particularly as regards the enforcement of council tax, which might be better dealt with in a county courts setting. In Torquay, that would mean people going to Torquay county court rather than setting off to a magistrates court to have an argument about a debt that, fundamentally, they have been unable to pay.

There is a need to focus on a long-term plan. I know that the Public Accounts Committee will shortly produce a report following our examination of the National Audit Office report into value for money in the criminal justice service. We need to consider the plan for the long-term future of our courts and the strategy for ensuring that some cases can still be decided locally. We need a commitment to that, not just an allusion to it, and a firm plan for areas where there will no longer be courts and where there is no alternative building in the vicinity.

We must also consider the magistracy. The news that Torquay magistrates court would disappear prompted a number of people who have sat on the bench for a long time to consider whether they would wish to travel to Plymouth to hear the large number of cases that will take place there. I would also be concerned, as I mentioned in an intervention earlier, that we might rapidly find that our magistrates are all drawn from areas in which courts survive, rather than being people from across the area, able to reflect the impact on the communities concerned.

On a slightly related point, we must also consider how we call people for jury service. Although Crown court cases are not held in Torbay, if we are reducing the number of potential Crown court locations, we could also be restricting the areas from which we can sensibly draw jurors. We must ensure that we have a balance. The jury is meant to reflect the people as a whole, and although we cannot do that on every jury, people should have an equal chance of being called up for jury service. They should not find that because they happen to live close to the sole Crown court their chances are higher, whereas those who live some distance away are not likely to be called at all because of the practicalities. It would be interesting to consider that in a long-term plan for our Courts Service.

Although it is disappointing to reflect on the closure of Torquay magistrates court, I hope that some of my points about planning for the long term will be taken up to ensure that large amounts of money are not spent on courts months before their proposed closure, and to ensure that we consider what goes before our courts, not just where cases are heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more. Inmates are often cycled through a series of low-level qualifications, none of which, after it is initially passed, secures any additional employability gains for the individuals concerned. I was very impressed on Friday, when I visited the military corrective training centre in Colchester, to see how our services have a prison that succeeds in helping individual prisoners to acquire more qualifications en route either to being reintegrated into the services or entering civilian life. That model could be applied with success in the civilian estate.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of using other venues in Torbay for magistrates court hearings after the closure of Torquay magistrates court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My officials are engaging with the local authority and will evaluate the suitability of any proposed venue. The majority of the work, however, will transfer to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. In addition, video link facilities are available in Newton Abbot for any victims or witnesses who are unable to attend court where cases are listed in Plymouth.

[Kevin Foster]

As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, there is disappointment in Torbay that justice may no longer be local after the closure of our magistrates court. Will he look again at options for holding some criminal cases at the town hall and county court buildings in Torquay?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had a lengthy and thorough consultation, where there were more than 2,000 responses. We have had to make some difficult decisions. I am afraid that Torquay magistrates court is in a poor condition, with inadequate facilities, and the majority of work will be transferred to Newton Abbot, seven miles away. We are, however, evaluating options to continue to provide access to services locally. My officials in the region have written to the council inviting alternative solutions for the provision of services.

Dog Theft: Sentencing

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the failure of the current system. I argue that we can deal with that by amending the sentencing guidelines. It does not necessarily need a change in the law; it needs a change in the approach to sentencing, which is completely inadequate at the moment.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To reinforce the point just made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too often people are sentenced as if they have nicked a garden gnome, TV or video that can easily be replaced by buying another one. The theft of a dog is stealing part of the family, and the sentence should reflect the impact that that theft has, which goes far beyond the impact of stealing a TV.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this debate generates a fair amount of passion because of the pain that such thefts impose on people who go through the loss of a quasi-member of their own family.

Police Funding Formula

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the House has an opportunity to focus on the important issue of the police funding formula. I will set out the background to, and the timeline of, the funding formula review before assessing where the process is now. The fundamental concern of the Home Affairs Committee is: when is the new review going to start?

I want to thank the members of the Committee, who have unanimously agreed the report—the hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

The majority of police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and Members of Parliament welcomed the launch of the police funding formula review last year. The manner in which police funding is currently distributed is outdated, inefficient and not fit for purpose. I want to commend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for taking on this challenge head-on. However, his ambition, which is shared by the whole House, has not been matched by the process.

When the Home Office launched the public consultation on 21 July 2015, it allowed a period of only eight weeks. After receiving an initial 1,700 responses, it laid out its proposed refinements to the model on 28 October. The second proposal was described as “inadequate”—by, among others, Tony Hogg, the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner—as it gave PCCs and chief constables just three weeks to respond.

The refined model showed that 11 forces would lose by the changes, while the remaining 32 forces would increase their share. The chief constables and PCCs were puzzled and frustrated about how the sums had been calculated. Eventually, it took Andrew White, the chief executive in the office of the Devon and Cornwall PCC, to purchase the original data, and he wrote to the Home Office on 2 November to inform the Home Office that it had used the wrong data in making its calculations. The whole police service and this House owe a debt of gratitude to Andrew White for his actions.

In a letter to me from the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill has since stated that this error occurred because officials got confused with similar filenames and therefore used the wrong set of data. When the error was discovered, the director general of the crime and policing group at the Home Office, Mary Calam, admitted that she did not understand the significance of the response that she had signed. I am not sure whether that admission was to give us faith in the system or make us question it further. Overnight, police forces across the country had swung from being winners to losers and vice versa. Chief Constable Giles York of Sussex police said that his force went from a £10 million loss to a £2 million gain. Chief Constable Mike Creedon of Derbyshire police said that his force went from a gain of £20 million to a £7 million loss. Chief Constable Simon Cole demonstrated that Leicestershire constabulary was set to lose £700,000 under the old system, but would now lose £2.4 million.

Subsequently, Mr Speaker granted my urgent question on 19 November 2015 and the process was rightly suspended by the Policing Minister. Again, he should be commended for coming to the Dispatch Box and agreeing that the sums were wrong and that the process had to be halted. I do not want to dwell any further on the history, except to say, as it says in the report, that this was a shambolic end to a poorly managed process that significantly damaged the relationship between the Home Office and its primary stakeholders, the police.

Currently, police funding is supposedly being given on the basis of a funding formula that has not been operated for a number of years. The formula is over a decade old and is not based on the latest census data, but on the previous census. It is impossible for police forces to calculate it because many of the data are out of date and it does not take into account the modern nature of policing.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Having acted as the rapporteur for a report on the police funding formula by the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that one issue is that the formula only really reflects the demands that crime places on the police, and not many of the other issues that they have to deal with? Does he share my disappointment that the shadow Policing Minister is not here to listen to this debate?

[Keith Vaz]

I make no comment on the absence of the shadow Policing Minister. I am sure that he will come in very soon and make up for lost time. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s first point in my speech. He raises an important issue on the capabilities of the police and the new demands of 21st-century policing.

Mike Creedon, the Derbyshire police chief, said to me that if the current formula was still valid,

“it would be reflecting a reality which is ten years old”.

He is clear, as are many other chief constables, that there is a consensus that we need to restart the process of moving to a fairer funding model. I think that that consensus is reflected throughout the House.

Since the publication of the police grant report in December 2015, concerns have been raised that it represents a real-term cut to grant levels of 1.4% and requires increases to the police element of the council tax precept. Police forces are being required to raise the police precept across the country, including in Cheshire, Northumbria, Humberside and Thames Valley—the area that is partly represented by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Dee Collins of West Yorkshire police estimates that her force has received a 3.2% cut in real terms, even after the PCC agreed to the maximum precept increase.

The Select Committee published its report on 11 December. The Government’s response is now 19 days late. The first question for the Minister is when the response will come.

Last Tuesday, five police and crime commissioners gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee: Ron Ball from Warwickshire, Alan Charles from Derbyshire, Sir Clive Loader from Leicestershire, Katy Bourne from Sussex and Jane Kennedy from Merseyside. It was clear from their evidence that the police and crime commissioners had not been consulted on the new review. Ian Hopkins, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, has said that he wishes to work collectively and collaboratively with the Home Office, as do many PCCs and chiefs.

It is clear from the concerns that have been raised with me by chief constables before this debate that they have not been consulted. However, in the last debate, which as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was only last Wednesday, the Minister alluded to the fact that he had met a number of chief constables. I am sure that he will enlighten us as to his further discussions when he responds to this debate. Chief Constable Neil Rhodes and Deputy Chief Constable Heather Roach of Lincolnshire police have informed me that they met the Policing Minister last Wednesday, 24 February, to discuss the formula. I hope that he will tell us the outcome of that meeting.

When he replies to the debate, will the Minister tell us about his engagement with police forces, and reassure them that he is taking the matter as seriously as he was when he last appeared before the House? One issue that must be clarified is the capability review undertaken by the National Police Chiefs Council under the leadership of Sara Thornton. If the Minister could advise the House about how far those deliberations have reached, that will assist us in knowing something of the timetable that he has in mind.

It is concerning that since last year’s formula changes were abandoned, there have been no further proposals to work on. The Minister wrote to me on 1 February with an update on the formula arrangements, but as I said, he has not given us a date for when that review will commence. Police forces need to know what is going to happen. Ian Drysdale, the director of business services for Kent police, said that the continuing uncertainty is unhelpful, and that a transition to a new arrangement should be made as soon as possible. Following the glaring errors last year, it is self-evident that the Home Office should redouble its efforts to create a fairer funding model, and it is clear that the funding review should be restarted as swiftly as possible.

You will be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Stephen Kavanagh, chief constable of Essex police, has stated that any prevarication on the part of the Home Office would be hugely disappointing and regrettable. Many have argued that it would be wrong to change the formula in a period of austerity, but on the contrary, austerity could have been a starting point for an informed reassessment of the formula in order to incentivise the police for reforms and deal with other inefficiencies. The flat rate reduction for all forces continues to penalise those who have already received less. However, following the Chancellor’s announcement in the comprehensive spending review on 25 November, which the Committee welcomed, that is less of a concern. In fact, the Home Office has a renewed opportunity to review the formula.

The three key failings aside from the stand-out mistake of confusing data filenames, were essentially process failures, such as sharing exemplifications at an early stage, which meant that data errors went unnoticed until it was too late, setting out transitional arrangements at an early stage, which meant that losers were even more concerned about the potentially immediate damaging impacts on their budget, and not allowing sufficient period for consultation, particularly with PCCs and chief constables. Does the Minister accept that those serious failings should be addressed in a future review process?

Social Security

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is central to what the WASPI campaigners have been arguing for some time and with which I have sympathy. The Government are failing to give adequate information and it is not readily available when people require it.

The DWP has produced analysis showing that the majority of people will be better off over the next 15 years, but what about after that? A close look at the figures reveals that, for those aged under 43 now—like me and many others in the House—the probability is that they will receive thousands of pounds less in state pension by the time they retire.

We do not hear much about the impact of the new state pension on the retirement income of future generations, and it is becoming increasingly clear why the Government are keen to keep quiet about it. Analysis that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), has commissioned from the Library shows that those in their 40s now are likely to be £13,000 worse off over their retirement. Men in their 30s now are likely to be nearly £17,000 worse off, while women will lose more than £18,000. For the generation in their 20s now, the loss is likely to be more than £19,000 for men and £20,500 for women. Future generations will clearly be worse off.

By 2060, when today’s 20-year-olds are nearing retirement, the Government will be spending £28 billion a year less on state pension provision. That is a huge cut, and one that has not been given proper acknowledgement by the Government or, consequently, been properly scrutinised and debated in the House or more widely.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady’s comments. She mentions the reduced state pension for those who are currently in their 20s, but how much of that reduction is based on the fact that the Pensions Act 2007 increased the retirement age for those who are my age and younger to 68?

[Angela Rayner]

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the coalition Government’s provisions. We had a proposal that worked for pensioners—we had a long-term plan—but the coalition Government speeded it up without any regard for the people affected by it, so I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members.

As I was saying, the £28 billion a year less that will be spent on state pension provision is a huge cut that has not been given proper acknowledgement by the Government. I hope we will debate it further in the House. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s so-called long-term economic plan involves cutting £28 billion from pensions? What assurances can he give to today’s younger generations—who face higher housing costs, the largest fall in real wages and greater insecurity in the workplace—that they will have sufficient income in retirement?

Labour will continue to ask the Government to be far more transparent about the long-term winners and losers from the new state pension. Withholding that information may be politically advantageous in the short term, but in the long term it serves only to undermine public trust in saving for retirement, which Members on both sides of the House agree is the right course for all our population and is in the national interest.

Members on both sides of the House showed enormous interest in a related debate in Westminster Hall last week, which was triggered by more than 140,000 signatures on the petition by WASPI. There was standing room only, not, I suspect, because it was my first outing on the Front Bench, but because of the significance and importance of the issue to many Members and 2.5 million of our female constituents. Indeed, the Minister might wish to note that they include more than 4,000 women in his own constituency. I therefore hope that he will expand on the Government’s consideration of transitional protections for those women, too many of whom were not given proper notification of the acceleration in their state pension age.

The Government have failed to respond to a number of proposals, including specific solutions for the 1951 to ’53 cohort of women, who will not have access to the new state pension that we are agreeing today; for those born between 6 October 1953 and 5 April 1955, who face a delay of more than a year; and for the women born later in 1953, who have had a double whammy of changes in 1995 and 2011. What assessment have the Government carried out of those options?

Alternatively, it was suggested during the passage of the Pensions Act 2011 that maintaining the qualifying age for pension credit according to the 1995 timetable would protect some of the most vulnerable people. Have the Government reconsidered the issue since then?

Turning to another element of the regulations, I note the proposal to freeze the saving credit element of pension credit, as announced in the autumn statement. For the 438,000 pension credit recipients who receive only the saving credit element of the pension credit, their losses will not be offset by the rise in guaranteed credit. Their pension credit reward will, therefore, be reduced.

Unfortunately, the Government have so far refused to come clean about the impact on some of Britain’s poorest pensioners. According to analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1.2 million recipients of pension credit will lose an average of £112 a year from the next financial year. That figure will be significantly higher for many people, including those in the poorest fifth of pensioner households. Will the Minister confirm that some of Britain’s poorest pensioners will be worse off as a result of the measure, and will he commit to publishing a more detailed impact assessment than that produced to date? Will he tell us exactly how many people will be worse off and by how much?

Knowledge is power, and people need to be empowered by knowledge when it comes to their retirement. I hope the Minister can provide some answers today, because that is the least that this and future generations of pensioners deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

We are very clear about the fact that what happened at Emstrey—and, sadly, at other crematoriums in England and Wales—must never happen again. In December, as the hon. Lady will know, we launched a consultation which will end in March. However, I shall be more than happy to make that representation on her behalf.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We are running very late, but the hon. Gentleman has not had a question, and I should like him to have one.

[Kevin Foster]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greatly appreciate that.

The Minister will be aware of the strength of representations from Torbay about the proposal to close Torquay magistrates court. What progress is being made in the consideration of that proposal, and in the making of a decision to keep justice local in the bay?

[Mr Vara]

I hear my hon. Friend’s message loud and clear. We have met and corresponded, and I am giving serious consideration to all that has been said about the court in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

1. What recent progress his Department has made on consulting on the future of Torquay magistrates court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Courts and Tribunals Service is evaluating all responses to the consultation, and no decisions have been made. An announcement on the future of Torquay magistrates court will be made in due course.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the Minister for his answer. At the end of this month, a successful turnaround integrated offender management team that is based at the court building is due to be evicted. Can he confirm that this is not a sign that the decision has already been taken, and that the Government are still considering options to keep justice local in the bay?

[Mr Vara]

May I first thank my hon. Friend for the submission that he made to the consultation? I am also grateful to him for raising this point so that I can clarify the issue. I can confirm that no decisions have been taken. Moreover, the arrangement for the turnaround IOM team to use the building was always due to come to an end this month. I understand that alternative arrangements have been made for it to continue to provide its very valuable services locally.

Police and Fire Shared Services

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Milling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree that that is another area where there is the opportunity for further collaboration by bringing police and fire training together.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that it is better when solutions and mergers come from the ground up, as was the case for example, when Devon and Somerset fire services merged, when the West Midlands and Staffordshire fire services agreed to share a control room, and when Devon and Cornwall police work together with Dorset police? All those examples were better than what we saw with the regional fire control projects, where top-down direction went totally wrong.

[Amanda Milling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he makes the valid point that there are many incredibly good examples of such collaboration across the country. Indeed, when I put pen to paper for this debate, I was able to write down several such examples, although I will not repeat them this afternoon; I have saved people from that. Nevertheless, as I say, there are many good examples out there.

Although there is evidence of progress in terms of fire services’ collaboration, co-responding and co-location with other blue light services, the Knight report highlighted that such collaboration was actually quite patchy, even though it could create real savings when it did happen. It gave some really good examples of collaboration, which were quite wide-ranging in nature, including the co-location of stations and headquarters, shared training, joint communication centres, joint operations and joint fleets. Those examples demonstrate that a clear appetite for collaboration, where there is the will to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

The hon. Gentleman makes the very important point that the police and fire services perform different roles, but I will go on to discuss why there should be some integration and sharing of roles in the services that are not necessarily specialist.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me again and for being so generous with her time. I have heard her comments about integration, with PCCs becoming police and fire commissioners. How would she deal with an area such as Torbay, where the PCC covers Devon and Cornwall while the fire service covers Devon and Somerset?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with that. I will come on to this, but if there is duplication in procurement, of course it would be sensible for that procurement to be done jointly. There is no argument about that.

[Kevin Foster]

Is the hon. Gentleman interested to hear that my police force in Devon and Cornwall is involved in the project in Hayle that has produced the UK’s first tri-service responder? A gentleman called Andrew Hitchens is an on-call firefighter and an ambulance service emergency first responder, and he has been trained in specific crime and disorder duties, too.

[Ian Lavery]

Well, that is interesting. That could be put on the table in the consultation with other people up and down the country who work in the services. We need consultation and discussion with those delivering services, such as the gentleman that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned.

There is a huge difference between a firefighter and a police officer. They have completely and utterly different remits. The police are law enforcers—it is as simple as that. The fire and rescue service is basically a humanitarian service. The two services have totally different remits. For example, firefighters need to be neutral in their communities and politically neutral. They cannot be seen as law enforcers or even to be connected in any way to law enforcement. In many areas, they have built up trust that the police probably do not have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) for securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to our blue-light services for everything they do to keep us all safe every day of the week. I was the chairman of Hampshire fire and rescue service for five or six years; in fact, I was a member of the authority for about 15 years. I was perhaps the only chairman who was interviewed by Sir Ken Knight when he did his review.

Austerity—this situation in which the country faces significant financial challenges—brings not only challenges but opportunities for our services, if people are prepared to take them. As a result of my leadership, that of the former chief fire officer, John Bonney, and that of his former deputy, Dave Curry, who is the current chief fire officer, Hampshire fire and rescue service has become one of the best, if not the best, fire and rescue services in the country. Of course, I would say that, because I was the chairman, but I think most people would acknowledge that it is right up there in the top 10, if not the best.

The service has tried to innovate its way out of the financial challenge it faces. If other fire and rescue services and police services did the same, we would not be having this debate about mandatory mergers. I think that that is a step too far and is completely unnecessary.

We talked about merging back-office functions; Hampshire has set up a business, as it were, called H3, which merges all the back-office functions of the police, the Hampshire fire and rescue service, and the county council, so when it comes to bringing in another public sector body, we are not necessarily talking about the police and fire; it could be the police and anything, or fire and anything. H3 merges IT, human resources and the back-office functions that the individual organisations involved would otherwise have, and it can bring more in. Other local authorities are looking to bring in their back-office functions. There is a philosophical argument about whether to privatise back-office functions. Some people feel a lot more comfortable about outsourcing those functions to an organisation that is publicly owned and run. Hampshire has already done that, and it was not rocket science.

[Kevin Foster]

If the arrangement were not mandatory but voluntary, what role does my hon. Friend envisage the Local Government Association, and in particular the national fire services management committee, of which I used to be a member, would play in encouraging such co-operation?

[Royston Smith]

It can have a role, precisely because that is a forum in which chairmen and others could meet and share best practice. I do not think that has been done, even now. People know what Hampshire is doing, and it is not just about H3 and back office. We have merged 18 or 19 premises with police—and I mean premises, not people; that is fundamental. We try to keep as many people as possible operating on the frontline. We will merge our headquarters into a police and fire headquarters, using the Government’s transformation fund. That will put police and fire in the same building, where they can work collaboratively on, for example, marketing and communications. Just putting them in the same building will save the police the cost of another building and will bring money into Hampshire fire and rescue service. Hampshire is in effect commissioned to run the Isle of Wight fire and rescue service; we are partnered with that service. I pay tribute to its former chief fire officer, Steve Apter, who in effect negotiated himself out of his job so that the saving could be made and so that Hampshire could effectively run the Isle of Wight’s fire services.

There are relatively minor savings in merging such things as governance, and it comes with a risk, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) suggested. That is not to say that fire and rescue authorities should not be leaner, and perhaps smaller. Hampshire fire and rescue has 25 members; a county brigade has one member. Of course, there are obvious savings to be made. In all likelihood the police and crime commissioner would spend at least half of what it costs to run a fire and rescue authority in running it himself, and that would mean less of a saving.

Mergers of all three services make no sense. One police and crime commissioner said it was ridiculous to send three vehicles to a road traffic collision, but of course it is ridiculous not to. The fire and rescue service may be needed to cut a casualty from a car; an ambulance may be needed to evacuate the casualty; and the police will be needed to ensure that traffic can continue to run. That could not be done with one vehicle; it would be physically impossible.

I do not think any place in the developed world has a merged police and fire service, but ambulance and fire services have been merged in many places, and that works well. Hampshire now provides a medical co-response to thousands of calls a year. That could be improved and increased. However, there is no operational reason for police and fire to merge. There is synergy in the merging of ambulance and fire, as I have said, and if savings in blue-light services are wanted, I think that is where the resources should be put. What the three services have in common is the fact that they all operate with blue lights; beyond that, much of what they do is entirely different, so we should be cautious before talking about mandatory mergers.