Heatwave Response

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to the fire services, and I know that all of us, particularly the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, have been watching in awe as the firefighters did their job over the past 48 hours.

There has been a strong communication campaign, in co-ordination with the devolved Administrations, not least in Scotland where the schools are not open at the moment, to illustrate the dangers of young people specifically, but all of us generally, diving or jumping into water about which we know very little. One of the lessons that has come out of the last couple of days is on our need for more targeted communication. As we review what has happened over the last three or four days, we will make sure this is one of the key things we examine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to hear the Minister, and I thank him for his statement. I also thank all the fire and rescue services for their endeavours and for the vital work they do across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Have there been any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about using our armed forces personnel to police our lakes and rivers as the heatwave pushes people to swim in unsafe areas? As the Minister said, 13 people are believed to have lost their lives, and I add my condolences to all the families who are grieving with an empty chair in their house. I think of them all.

Does the Minister believe the Government can increase public safety to prevent further tragic loss of life such as we have seen over the last few days?

[Kit Malthouse]

In contemplating any civil contingency situation, we examine whether we have the capacity needed to deal with it and, therefore, whether we need to seek it elsewhere. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember the worst pictures we saw during the extensive wildfires on Saddleworth moor and Winter hill in the north of England in 2018, when the armed forces were deployed to assist the emergency services. That was not deemed appropriate this time. In fact, our judgment that the emergency services would cope proved to be correct.

On the hon. Gentleman’s challenge on whether we can do more to educate people and to target bodies of water that might prove dangerous, and as I said to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), that is definitely something we will need to take away and consider. Obviously, we urge parents to take responsibility by understanding where their children are and by warning them about the dangers, as we did through our health messaging on looking after elderly neighbours. We all have to work together to keep our young people safe. We will examine what more we can do as we learn the lessons from this incident.

Extreme Heat Preparedness

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Employers already have an obligation to make sure temperatures at work are maintained at a reasonable level for the circumstances. That will vary from workplace to workplace, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know as a working man. There is a lot we can improve in our work and employment regulation but, at the moment, the law is pretty specific about where responsibility should lie.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also thank the Minister for his answers. Does the NHS 111 system, so effectively used at the height of the covid crisis to liaise with GP surgeries, have capacity to ring the vulnerable and the elderly at this time to provide advice to deal with the heatwave, as they may not have access to internet advice and many will not venture out to buy newspapers, which hopefully will be used to share information during this very warm weather?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I have specifically asked all Secretaries of State to identify particular channels of communication that might be used to target the most vulnerable groups, and it is not just the national health service. Train operating companies, for example, know who holds particular concession cards, and local authorities and the third sector are often able to communicate. We need to gently alert the whole population that we should look out for each other, and people in specific vulnerable groups must be able to get the advice and support they need, if and when they need it.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

We are doing significant work in all those areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Restoring trust in the police force can sometimes seem insurmountable, but does the Minister not agree that it must remembered that not all police are guilty? This report demands change, as it should, but it cannot be used as an excuse for abuse of the overwhelming majority of upstanding police officers who do their job to keep us all safe to the detriment of their own physical and mental health.

[Kit Malthouse]

Well, bravo to the hon. Gentleman—bravo! That is exactly the right sentiment. There are thousands of police officers out there every day who, if something happened to any of us, would run towards us to assist us. They get up in the morning and do their job to the best of their ability with integrity and honesty, and we should recognise that that is the case.

May I also say a word for the leadership of the Metropolitan police, who I know will be battered and bruised by the report today? I was heartened by their dignified statement following the issuing of this report, and I know that they will bend every sinew to bring in the changes that are required. In particular, the acting commissioner, who I know is a man of honesty and integrity and who has had a fantastic career in policing—he has put many villains behind bars and kept millions, unknowingly, safe in their beds at night—deserves our support as he drives forward the undoubted changes needed at the Metropolitan police.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak to the motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, including the associated amendments in lieu. We return yet again, I have to say with a smidgin of ennui and irritation, to the issue of police powers to attach conditions to protests. It is disappointing that the debate on these provisions continues to be characterised by misinformation about what the Bill actually does and irrationality.

I shall start with the issue of noise. As I said in round 2 of ping-pong, at the Opposition’s behest, we have added provisions to the Bill that can be used to limit noise and disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. I am therefore at a loss to understand why they would not agree to these provisions outside, say, a convent, a hospital, an animal sanctuary or, God forbid, a factory. What happened to the workers’ rights?

It cannot be that a protest can inflict any amount of noise on those living or working in the vicinity for prolonged periods of time, day or night. I agree that it would not be necessary or proportionate, for example, to attach conditions relating to the generation of noise to a procession that will pass a particular location within a matter of hours, but the same cannot be said of an ongoing raucous protest, perhaps encamped in a residential area, which includes the banging of drums and the use of loudhailers. It is intolerable that local residents should have to endure that day and night, and it is right that in those circumstances, the police should have the power to act. I do not understand why those residents’ rights are so lightly set aside by the Opposition. When the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) rises to address the motions, I hope she will answer that question.

I can, however, assure the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—they questioned me on this in the last round—that there are no new powers here to restrict what is said and, for that matter, sung. These provisions are simply about the harm caused by excessive noise; the content is irrelevant. Of course, the existing criminal law relating to hate or intimidatory speech will continue to apply.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have a real concern about Lords amendment 80. I am not sure that my concern, or the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have been dispelled. Can the Minister give me an assurance in this House today, on the record in Hansard, that open-air or other events will not be affected? The letter of the law does not give that protection; sadly—this has been done in this country already—officers have the power to arrest those preaching the word of God. I seek an assurance from the Minister that on no occasion and under no circumstances will the opportunity to preach the gospel in the streets of this kingdom be in any way thwarted, reduced or restricted.

[Kit Malthouse]

As I have already explained, what is said is irrelevant for the purposes of this legislation. The Bill merely covers the distress that may be caused by the volume or persistence of the noise. The existing criminal law already covers content. If the content—obviously, not in this case—is intimidating, somehow hateful or incites some kind of violence, there are already provisions against that kind of speech. The hon. Gentleman describes somebody simply preaching the gospel; if they are not causing alarm or distress through the level or persistence of the noise, I cannot see why that would be offensive to anybody, or that the police would use these powers.

I turn to the other provisions in clause 56, enabling the police to attach any condition to a public assembly where such conditions are necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation. I welcome the belated acceptance by the other place that existing powers in section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 are insufficient, but I am afraid Lords amendment 87J is not up to the task. The police have told us that the distinction drawn in that Act between processions and assemblies is outdated, and it does not reflect current-day challenges of policing dynamic protests that can morph from a procession to an assembly and back again. The current situation prompts all sorts of questions. For example, how slowly would a procession have to move before it becomes static? If protesters walk in a 200 metre circle, is that a procession or a static protest?

It will continue to be the case that any conditions must be proportionate, and necessary to prevent serious disorder and the other serious harms set out in the Bill. None of that, however, is to say that we have not listened to and reflected on the views expressed by the other place. In the last round, we raised the threshold for the exercise of noise-related powers by removing the “serious unease” trigger, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the operation of the relevant provisions in clauses 55, 56 and 61 within two years of their commencement. In one of our earlier debates, my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), stressed the need for a post-legislative review of those provisions, and the amendments would enshrine that in law.

We have reached a stage of the legislative process where the issue at stake is no longer simply the merits or otherwise of the measures that we are debating. A more fundamental issue is at stake: the primacy of this elected House in our constitutional arrangements. This House has already debated and expressly approved the noise-related provisions on no less than three occasions: on Report last July; on consideration of Lords amendments at the end of February; and again at the end of March. That is not to mention the separate votes on Second and Third Reading of the Bill. I hope and expect that hon. Members will endorse the provisions for a fourth time when we come to the Division. The other place, composed as it is of hereditary and appointed Members without any democratic mandate, has done its duty in asking this House to reconsider this issue. We have now done so and made our position abundantly clear. We should send the provisions back to the Lords again, with a clear and unequivocal message that they should now let them, and the Bill, proceed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As usual, my right hon. and learned Friend has made a helpful suggestion. We will certainly review as he suggests. It is worth bearing in mind what we are trying to achieve, which is twofold. First, we obviously want to encourage women and girls to come forward and report in a way that they believe will have impact. Secondly, we have to make sure that that impact happens—that there is a police response. As many hon. Members will know, modern policing is driven by data. It is important that the police see crime through the data that appears daily in their management dashboard and that they can therefore assign resources accordingly. I have often said to groups of citizens that reporting crime is a little like that interesting philosophical problem: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a crime occurs and no one reports it, how on earth are the police to know?

The reporting of crime is often a complex area, so marrying up the confidence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) is looking for in reporting, and making sure that that then translates into police action on the frontline, is the critical piece of work that we want to do as swiftly as possible.

I move on to the question of a stand-alone offence. The Law Commission’s review of hate crime laws did touch on this issue, while noting that it was not within its terms of reference. In doing so, it suggested that the Government should tread carefully, recommending that we explore the possible need for such an offence and ensure that, if one is required, it is proportionate and well defined. It also briefly echoed some of the Government’s own considerations about the need for further analysis, speaking to some of the complexities.

With that in mind, I am pleased that in the other place my noble Friend Baroness Williams committed to consulting publicly on the issue before the summer recess. That is entirely the right approach—ensuring that we are moving forward to elicit answers while taking account of the competing considerations at play. Again, short of rushing into legislation before we have the right answers, this part of the Lords amendment is also in my view rather redundant.

As I have said before, our desire to advance the cause of women’s and girls’ safety is extremely strong, but we have to ensure that our efforts are directed at the right solutions. The Government are already doing and have committed to doing a huge span of work in this space, and our mission is ongoing and urgent. To that end, the Government have tabled amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. These require us properly to consider the Law Commission’s carefully considered and expert-informed recommendation relating to making misogyny a hate crime and to establish a clear position on it. Through that, we are targeting attention to the right evidence-based solutions, the importance of which I have outlined. Furthermore, we have gone further in committing to consulting publicly on a new public sexual harassment offence, which means that we will soon have a much clearer sense of how we should proceed. With those measures in mind, I invite the House to reject Lords amendment 72B and agree with the amendments in lieu.

Let me turn to the two public order issues that were returned to this House by their lordships. There has been much ill-informed comment about the powers to attach conditions to a protest related to the generation of noise. I will repeat what I said at the last session of ping-pong: these provisions do not ban noisy protests. There is no dispute that local authorities should have powers to deal with egregious noise—I speak as a local councillor and, when I was a resident of central London, as a frequent user of their services. Indeed, at the Opposition’s behest, we added provisions to the Bill that can be used to limit noisy and disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. Those continuing to support the Lords amendments—including, I assume, Labour Members—are saying that protesters may make any amount of noise, at any location, at any time of the day or night, and for any length of time, perhaps over a period of days or weeks.

When faced with a prolonged protest in, for example, a residential or commercial area, where the level of noise is such as to amount to intimidation or harassment, or is causing alarm or distress, it is entirely reasonable that the police should be able to impose conditions, perhaps prohibiting the use of amplification equipment or drums between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. If not, we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where although the police cannot enforce something, the local authority can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Obviously, Northern Ireland has a history and tradition of protesting, and it is about getting the right balance. I say honestly to the Minister that I, and probably other Opposition Members, would like Lords amendment 73 to be approved. If someone is preaching the Gospel, or if a single person or group of people are singing hymns on the streets of the United Kingdom, can the Minister reassure me that they will be able to continue and there will be no restrictions? We all know those services last no longer than about an hour—that is a fact. We are keen to ensure that the Government are not suppressing the right to religious freedom in the way it has been suppressed in the past.

[Kit Malthouse]

There is no desire or intention to suppress religious or other freedoms. This is about giving the police powers not to ban protest or assembly, but to place conditions on it. As I said in previous stages of the Bill, the job of this House in a democratic society is to balance competing rights. There is no doubt that, as is accepted at the European Court of Human Rights and across the liberal world, the right to protest is not unqualified. Someone cannot protest in such a way that it unreasonably impinges on my right to go about my business as a non-protester. Where noise is concerned, we are seeking to give the police powers to strike that balance where appropriate.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I say, HMI is looking at these issues more widely across the whole of UK policing, and we will learn some lessons from that report. But we should not forget that the Commissioner of the Met herself has commissioned Dame Louise Casey to look at the internal culture of the Met, and that will give us some indications of where we should go next, if at all. Beyond that, similarly, stage 2 of the Angiolini review, which will look at this issue more widely, will be able to give us some information as to where we should go next, if at all.

This is a building picture. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very distressing, alarming and scandalous story that has run for far too many years. We have a duty in this House to try to get to the bottom of what happened and to make changes to ensure that it does not happen again, but that will not be a silver-bullet revelation; it will be a building picture, and this report is part of that. The report informs our work for now, and we will look to the future to see where we go next.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. While an apology is, I am sure, welcomed by the family, perhaps what would be more welcome is steps being taken to prevent this from happening again. Does he accept that there is a duty of care, and will he undertake to implement the necessary changes, which the report highlights in great detail, to ensure that the Met police continues to be a premium police service that is respected globally, as it has been for many years?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman asks his question very eloquently, and I completely agree with him. My primary concern in this affair is to get justice for the family of Daniel Morgan, who have campaigned for many years on this issue—a truly scandalous story that has involved many of us on both sides of the House. My second concern is to ensure that the Metropolitan police is fit to serve Londoners and that they can have trust in it. As somebody who, I must confess, has great affection for the Met, having worked for it in the past and seen the incredible things of which it is capable, I say to the officers of the Metropolitan police who want to know that they are working for exactly the organisation that the hon. Gentleman describes—one that is deeply respected across the world, not just for its ability to catch every murderer or to stop knife crime in London or to put more rapists behind bars, but for its internal conduct and culture of ethics and integrity—that that is what we have to be about.

Metropolitan Police: Strip-search of Schoolgirl

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Lady’s anger at this incident; I really do. It is a dreadful incident, and I would much rather not be standing here having to answer these kinds of questions, because I would rather these incidents did not occur in the first place. I will say to her what I have said to everybody else: we will know more when the IOPC concludes. While I understand the House’s impatience and anger, the police officers concerned have a right to due process and we have a duty to wait for the report so that we can see properly the evidence of what happened and then take action accordingly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for bringing the urgent question forward. This serious incident has undoubtedly sent shockwaves to every parent and grandparent in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that there must be safeguarding in place to protect the child as well as the police officers? If we do not robustly enforce protections to the very highest standards, the hardest questions must be answered by those in the highest positions within the police as, ultimately, the buck stops with them.

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right that we should expect and work for the highest possible standards. This young person, Child Q, has been through a dreadful, traumatic episode, which I am sure will live with her, sadly, for many years. We need to do our best to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not reoccur, and that is the best we can do. The hon. Gentleman has my undertaking that as soon as we have the full picture, that is exactly what we will do.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

All I can do for the hon. Lady is quote from the Law Commission’s report, which I assume she has read, extensive though it is. It specifically states:

“We recognise that many people may disagree with our conclusion and find it difficult to understand given the prevalence of sex and gender-based violence and abuse…our recommendations have been decided…on the strength of the evidence and policy considerations before us.”

I hope she will understand that notwithstanding the division of opinion there may be, the fact that the Law Commission—after three years, and with weighty legal minds—disagrees with this move, along with large women’s organisations, such as Rape Crisis, means that in all conscience we cannot support an amendment that they say will make things worse. We have to commit ourselves to making things better and by other means, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has pointed out. That is exactly what I am doing today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for all his work. I am concerned about how ladies and girls will have confidence in the processes coming forward. He has clearly said that the amendment is not acceptable because he feels that, legislatively, the Government are addressing those issues, but the people who speak to me—the ladies and gentlemen, and the young girls in particular—need to have confidence in the processes. I do not see that, so how will he legislatively ensure that that is there for ladies and girls?

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment. Having been in this House for nearly seven years, I have often realised that we mistake the introduction of legislation for actually doing something out there on the street. Although we can and should legislate to make things crimes and to better dispose of them, we actually need somebody to take off their bicycle clips, walk out of the office or station and do something different out there on the street to make those of us in society who feel unsafe—particularly, sadly, women and girls—feel safer.

We are trying to give concrete life to that through schemes such as the safer streets fund, where we are specifically spending money on public realm improvements, whether that is CCTV or better street lighting, in areas where women and girls feel unsafe. I hope that the huge increase in police numbers that we are seeing at the moment will see more uniforms out there on the street in those areas where women and girls feel unsafe. There are wider cultural issues that we also need to address. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out, however, that legislation will only take us so far and that what is required is action out there on the streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

Lords amendment 71 would introduce a duty of candour for the police workforce. I am sure that hon. Members know that the Government take police integrity and accountability extremely seriously. So much so that, in February 2020, we introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for serving police officers as part of wider integrity reforms.

A failure to co-operate in that way constitutes a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour by which all officers must abide and could therefore result in a formal disciplinary sanction. It is our view that the duty to co-operate puts a greater onus on officers than the duty of candour provided for in the Lords amendment, as they could ultimately be dismissed for a breach. In essence, the Lords is proposing a dilution.

Hon. Members will also be aware of the Government’s forthcoming response to the Daniel Morgan independent panel and to Bishop James Jones’ report concerning the bereaved Hillsborough families’ experiences, and we will set out our view on a wider duty of candour for all public authorities. Before the Government respond to those reports, however, it is clearly imperative that the Hillsborough families are given the opportunity to share their views.

None the less, we are closely monitoring the impact of the new legislation on police co-operation with inquiries and investigations. As we consider the case for a wider duty of candour for other public servants and bodies, we will determine whether there are gaps in the existing framework that need to be filled to ensure public confidence. I assure the House that we will set out our conclusions later this year.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments to part 3 of the Bill, I point out to hon. Members that over the last couple of years, with regard to public order, we have all seen that the police have struggled with some of the demonstrations that we have seen on our streets. Last autumn, Insulate Britain’s new tactics put a lot of police officers in danger, caused a significant amount of misery to many thousands of people who simply wanted to get to work or to otherwise go about their daily lives, and were difficult to address. Since, we have seen further examples of wholly unacceptable forms of protest. I am afraid that their lordships may regret the day that they voted down the significant number of measures that we had inserted in the Bill.

The House of Lords did, however, recognise that freedom of speech and assembly are qualified rights under the European convention on human rights, and there are times when it is appropriate to restrict those rights to protect the rights of non-protesters. For that reason, we are sympathetic to Lords amendment 143, which would introduce fast-track public space protection orders. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place about the harm caused by disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. We agree in principle with the amendment, and our amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 143 will have a similar effect but will ensure that provision for expedited PSPOs works with the grain of the existing legislative framework.

[Jim Shannon]

I very much look forward to the tightening of the laws, but I am also conscious that I look for balance. As one who has protested on the streets of Northern Ireland on many occasions—legally—with an important desire to do so, I ask whether the Minister feels that the balance is right in this legislation. In our words, the right to protest should be done in a peaceful manner, not to obstruct anybody.

[Kit Malthouse]

I do indeed believe that the balance is right, but the hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services was specifically tasked with looking at the balance of legislation and protest. After some examination, it decided that the balance had swung too far in favour of protest and too much away from the rights of others to go about their daily lives.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said, much of my work over the past two years has been devoted to bringing the focus of the whole of UK policing and, in particular, its leadership on to murder as a specific issue. That means improving processes, improving forensics, improving their investigation techniques and improving their prior identification. Crucially, it means improving the leadership, and that is what I was doing last Thursday with the police chiefs from across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the questions. Having read some of the details of this case in the news recently, I was, like others in this Chamber, very shocked. I am anxious to understand why normal procedures do not seem to have been followed. Can the Minister affirm that, in every case, regardless of the crime and the motivation, the inquiry and the evidence procedure is the same, and that there are no levels of importance in the allocation of cases in any of our police forces in the United Kingdom?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is definitely the consistency that we seek, but there is a category of deaths that have thus far needed some focus, which is unexplained deaths. For example, the circumstances of this case are that these deaths were originally classified as unexplained or non-suspicious. Since then, I understand that the Metropolitan police have put in a step-by-step guide for officers to make sure that, in contemplating these deaths, no stone goes unturned in trying to connect them, and that they are forensic and curious about whether they could be linked. In the very obvious way that many of us have read about in the papers, these murders were in fact linked, whether by geography or by causation. I hope that that will improve the investigation of the cases and that we will see that consistency that the hon. Gentleman seeks across the whole country.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is once again inviting me to speculate on the background, nature and motivation of the individual. I hope she will forgive me if I refrain from doing so. I am happy to take that question in other circumstances and, if she wants to table it as a written question, I will make sure that there is a swift reply on the numbers.

On the hon. Lady’s sentiment, I am reassured about the possible community implications because I know that Liverpool is not a city filled with hate. It is a city where people put their arms around each other and stand together in adversity, as sadly they have had to do too often. I know that they will this time, too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister outline what can be done to ensure that the taxi driver, David Perry, who looked into the face of evil and acted courageously—eerily reminiscent of those heroes who gave their lives and were honoured on the day when this terrorist sought to murder, take life and disrespect our great nation and democracy—will be able to put food on the table, return to work after his recovery and have a vehicle to earn his living?

[Kit Malthouse]

It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he would focus on the welfare of that individual. I will personally ensure that he is getting all the support that he needs to recover properly.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. This is a very important issue, as has been illustrated. The Minister is aware that the bedrock of a successful police force is integrity and community relations. We have seen in the past in Northern Ireland what the appearance of two-tier policing does to the erosion of confidence. How does the Minister believe confidence can be restored within communities about the integrity of their police force, and in particular for frightened women?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the button, and there is no single answer to restoring, building or even maintaining that kind of trust. He will remember, because of his long history in this House, that some years ago a measure of confidence in policing was produced, and a huge amount of academic effort and work went into understanding what would move that confidence measure—what they could do in policing to shift it and grow confidence. Much of that research went into a dead end. In the end there were broadly two conclusions. One was to do a good job fighting crime, and the second was to be transparent and open, and to have a great relationship with the local community. That is what the vast majority of police officers aspire to. Our stream of work in dealing with the dreadful offences that are committed against women and girls across the country on a daily basis and driving those numbers down, while at the same time working hard to build and restore trust between the police and women and girls, and with all groups in society, must be critical for the health of British policing, and for our greater safety.

Tackling Knife Crime

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the need for a strategy or partnership between the Minister’s Department and education. Is that part of the strategy? If it is, I believe that is core to changing the mindset but also to improving the situation. I just ask the question.

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a good question. It is certainly the case that violence reduction units, which are led locally, include wider education programmes, and I have seen good examples of that. They are there to generally educate young people about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that someone carrying a knife is more likely to be a victim than to protect themselves. I have seen some imaginative use of such programmes. I was in the west midlands a couple of weeks ago, where a virtual reality set-up was used with schoolchildren to indicate to them the best way in which to continue their lives.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a strong interest in the Bill. It contains serious violence reduction orders, which give the police the power, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central pointed out, to stop those individuals who are known knife carriers, and are known to have been convicted in the past and to have shown a proclivity to violence. They are designed to discourage and deter people from carrying weapons, given the increased likelihood of getting caught, and to protect offenders—to give them an excuse to move away from being drawn into exploitation by criminal gangs.

Support for Women Leaving Prison

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is setting out clearly some of the good things that can be done. Within those, in my contribution I mentioned social skills. It is important that people can leave prison and interact with people in a way that they can understand and feel the confidence that they need. Is this one of the measures that the Minister will introduce for those who are leaving prison?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In discussions in the Ministry of Justice I have made it clear that my view, which I think is shared broadly by Ministers in the Department, is that there are three foundations for success in life post-prison. They are a job, a house and a friend—effectively, someone to hold your hand. If someone leaving prison has those three pillars in their life, they are much more likely to succeed on the outside. Too often, people have one, or possibly two, but certainly not all three. In the role that I am trying to put in place around integrated offender management—the reboot of that effort—that is what we are going to try to achieve.

The New Futures Network continues to support businesses that are part of the employers’ forum for reducing reoffending, to deliver new, tailored employment for women. Initiatives to be trialled include mentoring and thematic virtual sessions covering the development of soft skills, as the hon. Gentleman said. These will be offered to women serving the last few months of their sentence. The framework of support will be tested in three prisons.

Given the ambition of the hon. Member for Swansea East for the Government to go further, she will be pleased to know that as part of the January announcement to tackle and reduce reoffending, we are seeking to introduce and test new approaches and roles across education, employment, accommodation and substance misuse. HMP New Hall, which was mentioned, has been selected to ensure the specific needs of women are captured, so that learning can be shared across the female estate more broadly.

To conclude, I hope I have removed any doubts about the Government’s ongoing commitment to deliver fully the female offender strategy and that, in the time available, I have been able to provide clear examples of how we are working to properly support women leaving prison. As far as the extra 500 places are concerned, I hope that the hon. Lady and others will understand that, while we have to plan for the worst, and the impact of 20,000 police officers on the prison estate cannot be ignored, we will work very hard between then and now for a much better outcome than an increase in the prison population.

Police National Computer

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head over to Northern Ireland with Jim Shannon—a virtual Jim Shannon!

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

My goodness, Mr Speaker; thank you very much, whether virtually or in person, but virtually today.

I thank the Minister for his most comprehensive statement. My concern lies in the fact that there are cases that are sensitively linked to Northern Ireland. I would appreciate an understanding that contact has been made with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to go over how the data breach may have affected Northern Ireland citizens and residents and, further, whether it is felt that victims of crimes in particular may be affected and what steps are to be taken if they are affected.

[Kit Malthouse]

As I say, the whole of UK policing has been involved, through the National Police Chiefs Council, in the effort both to comprehend the scale of the problem and then to put in place mitigation. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; as usual, victims of crime are uppermost in his mind, as they are, hopefully, in all of ours. I will be able to tell him later in the week, hopefully, what the precise impact might or might not have been and what the mitigations that we put in place will do to ensure that victims are not impacted while we recover this data and get ourselves back on an even keel.

Draft Surrender of Offensive Weapons (Compensation) Regulations 2020

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 General Committees

[Kit Malthouse]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will deal first with the questions from the hon. Member for Croydon Central, who speaks for the Opposition. I hope that she will be reassured to have, from the person who led the fight against the last spike in knife crime in the capital, between 2008 and 2012, my personal commitment to dealing with what is undoubtedly an increase in knife crime over the past couple or three years. We are taking lots of action on that. Of course, we are, as she knows, rapidly expanding police capacity. The recruitment of police officers is going extremely well: we are well ahead of target on our first 6,000, and I am confident that we will get to 20,000 over the next two and a half years or possibly before. That will address many of the capacity concerns that she expressed.

On start dates, we have not yet agreed a start date. Given the current stage of the pandemic, we have to be careful about judging a time at which it is appropriate for people to travel to police stations and at which the police have capacity to administer the scheme. In discussion with the police, we are hoping to agree a date later this year, but we will have to see how the pandemic progresses.

On the standard rate of compensation and related questions from the hon. Member for Strangford, we had to set a base price somewhere and there were two considerations: first of all, that the administration of the scheme did not cost us more than the worth of the item; but, secondly, that by setting a bar too low we might stimulate people, frankly, to go to their kitchen drawer, find a knife and turn up to get some money for it. So, £30 was deemed an appropriate level, whereby we would not stimulate that kind of activity but that would still provide a fair level of compensation for the majority of people we are talking about.

I should just point out that obviously these regulations do not cover items such as Purdey shotguns; those shotguns are still perfectly legal, subject to licensing conditions, and will continue to be so. They do cover certain types of rifle and bump stocks, and a list of other weapons, which should, in theory, have been circulated to Members. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with specific details about what might be on that list.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps I have got it wrong, and if I have I apologise to the Minister. As he knows, the firearms law in Northern Ireland is very different from the law here on the mainland; we need to have a licence for everything from an air rifle to a high-calibre rifle and so on, and in between we have shotguns. Any weapon that someone has that is not licensed is illegal. Therefore, if someone finds it as I have outlined, it is not as if it is legal any more. Does that mean that those shotguns perhaps do not come under this scheme? I just want to clarify that, to be sure. If it is an illegal weapon, and it is not held under a firearms certificate, then I ask the question: does it qualify?

[Kit Malthouse]

As far as I am aware, the intention of the scheme—I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify matters, because, as he says, the arrangements in Northern Ireland are slightly different from those in the rest of the country—is just to compensate people for those items that were banned by the 2019 Act, which does not include shotguns. There will be a list of items attached to the form, with the standard list of compensations, and in Northern Ireland it will not include offensive weapons, other than firearms and ancillary equipment such as bipods, sights and those kinds of things. It is largely for firearms where there is, as it were, gas-assisted expulsion of ammunition. However, as I say, I am happy to write to him to clarify matters, so that he is clear in his mind and can communicate the requirements to his constituents. On the compensation issue that he raised, while there will be standard rates, it is possible for people to make a higher claim, subject to a valuation, and the regulations detail the types of evidence that can be offered to make a case for a higher valuation.

In a small number of circumstances, it may be the case that there are some items of historical importance. We are in conversation with Ministers at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about how we might allow people to surrender such weapons, perhaps to museums or to other organisations, where that importance can be recognised. Hopefully, I have answered the questions that were asked and we can move towards consideration of the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

9.38 am

Committee rose.

Birmingham Attacks and Extinction Rebellion Protests

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, I simply do not understand the comments of the police and crime commissioner. I had a call with him this morning, as hon. Members would expect, and these matters were not discussed. I have to say, however, that there is nothing inevitable about crime. A key plank of the approach of all Governments to crime has to be prevention. If we think smartly, work smartly and look at the complex causes of crime, we can and will prevent it in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister of State for his statement today. Can he confirm what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the right message goes out that if people are not peacefully protesting within the law, then there will be consequences and these will be faced by every member who takes part in these so-called protests? On occasion, these can turn into riots and can involve attacking and disrupting people, members of the police force and businesses, which will not be tolerated. Will the Minister of State clarify again that the right to protest does not mean a right to shut down business and cause loss of income or, indeed, worse—injury?

[Kit Malthouse]

The right to protest, like the right to free speech or to free assembly, is a gem to be treasured. It is a delicate vase, of which we must all take care, and those who abuse it, crack that vase for the rest of us and, as a result, do us all a disservice. The hon. Member is quite right that we have to take very seriously those who use the pretext of peaceful protest to prosecute criminal acts. I hope he will have seen, from the large number of arrests that have taken place over the last week or so, that certainly the police are taking that approach.

Organised Crime in Rural Areas

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Sir David, in an oasis of rigour, discipline, etiquette and calm in these troubled times. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this debate on crime in rural areas. I know that she is passionate about her area in particular and rural communities in general, and puts their needs at the heart of everything she does. She has raised some interesting points this afternoon, which I will study. I am obviously alarmed to hear about the incident in Staffordshire and, indeed, about fly-tipping, and those things are definitely of growing concern to rural communities across the country.

Many forms of crime, such as domestic violence, modern slavery, fraud and theft, know no boundaries and can be found in urban and rural areas alike. However, the Government recognise that certain forms of crime can, by their very nature, be a particular issue for those who live and work in rural communities—crimes such as hare coursing, livestock theft, fly-tipping and, of course, the theft of high-value agricultural machinery. That is very much reflected in the rural affairs strategy published by the National Police Chiefs Council in July 2018. It was developed following consultation with rural stakeholders and sets out operational and organisational policing priorities with respect to tackling crimes that predominantly affect rural communities.

The strategy is clear that tackling organised criminality is key to police success in tackling rural crime. An example would be targeting gangs that use stolen farm vehicles or machinery to rip out ATMs from their locations and then launder the cash through other activities. That is something I have seen in my constituency. It is worth noting that the strategy emphasises the importance of forces developing close partnerships with regional organised crime units, working across force boundaries and increasing intelligence sharing between stakeholders. That seems to me to be the right approach.

In addition, to support the police response, each Crown Prosecution Service area has a Crown prosecutor dedicated to wildlife, rural and heritage crime co-ordination, to ensure that the specialist knowledge needed to prosecute such offending is readily available. Moreover, the Government are committed to providing all police forces in England and Wales with the resources they need to do their crucial work, in rural and urban areas alike. On 22 January, we announced a police funding settlement of up to £15.2 billion for next year—an increase of up to £1.1 billion compared with last year and the biggest increase in funding for the policing system since 2010.

As far as the workforce is concerned, we have committed to recruiting 20,000 new police officers over the next three years; £45 million has already been committed to start the recruitment process and a further £750 million will be invested next year to enable forces across the country to recruit 6,000 additional officers by the end of March 2021. Of that £750 million, £700 million will go directly to police and crime commissioners.

In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service is receiving an extra £85 million to ensure that criminal justice system can support the work of those extra officers—and let us not forget the professionalism, dedication and sacrifice shown by special constables in their work. Special constables, along with a range of other volunteers in policing, make a vital contribution to keeping our communities safe, and over the next few years I hope that their numbers will expand, not least because they are incredibly useful in a rural community. Our ambition surely should be for every village and town across the country to have at least one constable or special constable resident in it; though they may not be in uniform, they are, of course, on duty 24 hours a day and therefore able to enforce the law, should that be needed.

By your leave, Sir David, I will take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has raised in this debate back to the Home Office and study them, but I hope to reassure everybody in the Chamber that rural crime is one of the areas that we are keen to make progress on.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

It is traditional, I think, to give way to the hon. Gentleman, so therefore I will.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very happy that the Minister has given way to me; I am not sure whether it is traditional or not, but it happens very often. In her introduction, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) gave an example of a tractor that within 24 hours was in Poland. I have examples in my constituency where within 24 hours the machinery has gone to the Republic of Ireland. Has there been an opportunity to discuss with other police forces—An Garda Síochána, for example—those criminal gangs that she referred to, which are operating and taking machinery mainland here and are also going into the Republic of Ireland? Has that been done?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is quite right that our operations at the border are critical to our success in tackling in particular the theft of machinery, which takes place all too frequently. He will know that there is a specialist intelligence organisation, funded partly by the insurance industry, that looks for unexpected plant and machinery movements across the border and tries to identify them on behalf of finance companies. I should declare an interest, as the founder and majority shareholder of a plant and equipment finance company that has employed the services of that intelligence organisation from time to time.

While the hon. Gentleman is right that there will be movements across the border into Ireland, the market for plant is an international one, and left or right-hand drive does not really matter when moving a backhoe loader. The movement of plant and, indeed, other contraband and stolen items across the border is key. He might be interested to know that just this week meet I met the National Police Chiefs Council lead on acquisitive crime to talk specifically about some of those issues, not least ATM thefts in rural areas, the theft of plant and equipment and, indeed, high-value cars, which we are seeing more and more concealed inside containers and then shipped out of the country to other parts of the world.

From my point of view, as a constituency MP who represents 200 square miles of beautiful rolling chalk downland in Hampshire and who has in the past two or three weeks had meetings with members of the farming community to talk about exactly this issue, we have been discussing something close to my heart and on which I think we need to make progress. Hon. Members have my undertaking that we will.

Question put and agreed to.

Policing (England and Wales)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

To repeat what I said in my earlier answer, those 136 are the first instalment of a three-year programme. We are recruiting 6,000 and there are a further 14,000 to go. Although we have yet to decide completely how the remaining 14,000 will be allocated, it is not hard to surmise that all forces will receive more than in this year. I ask hon. Members to hold fire and rejoice in the fact that these first 6,000 will be recruited—we hope—in 12 months’ time. That is on top of the number of police officers baked into the very large financial settlement last year. It means that by the end of three years the number of police officers in this country should be higher than it was in 2010.

No two areas of this great country face the same challenges. This Government want to level up our communities, but to do that we must tackle regional issues head on, including crime. PCCs have continued to ask for more flexibility and funds to respond to local priorities. We have listened to their pleas and empowered them to target the criminals plaguing their towns and communities. This settlement allows all PCCs to raise council tax contributions for local policing; it is less than 20p per week for a typical household—just £10 per year. If all PCCs decide to maximise their flexibility, the result will be £248 million of additional funding for local policing. Locally elected PCCs will decide how to use that flexibility, and will be accountable to their electorate for using it to cut crime and deliver real results in their areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been contacted by some shooting organisations so that I can put this on the Minister’s plate. The Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have expressed concern about firearm certificate renewals and new applications across the whole of mainland England and Wales. They have indicated to me that there is not a uniform system of renewing firearm certificates. We must remember that those who have such certificates are the most law-abiding people in the whole of the UK. Will he assure us today that firearms licensing will be delivered equally across all counties and police forces in England and Wales?

[Kit Malthouse]

Obviously, it is a responsibility of the local PCC and the chief constable to make sure that they deliver the services they are mandated to deliver in an effective way. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I held a meeting two weeks ago with the British Shooting Sports Council, and one or two of its constituent members, to discuss exactly some of the difficulties he raises. This is on my list; alongside being Policing and Crime Minister, I am the firearms Minister. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that I will be paying attention to that issue in the months to come.

The horrific attack in Streatham just weeks ago showed that the threat of terrorism in this country remains all too real. I know that all our thoughts are with the victims and all those affected, and I would like to pay tribute to the remarkably brave police officers who stopped the attacker before more harm was done. To keep people safe, we must also invest in our homeland security, which is why this settlement increases funding for counter-terrorism policing by £90 million to more than £900 million. That includes a continuation of the £24 million uplift in armed policing.

We are also tackling high-harm crimes that devastate families, towns and communities. Serious and organised crime exploits the vulnerable and fuels much of the horrific violence on our streets, so we will allocate £155 million next year to help the police fight back—this includes funding new capabilities for tackling illicit finance. We are also investing in national policing priorities that benefit all forces across the country. That includes making sure we keep up with the criminals we are pursuing. Our systems simply must be up to scratch to help us stay one step ahead as crime evolves. We will invest £516 million to improve police technology in 2020-21, which will upgrade critical infrastructure such as replacing the Airwave communication system with the 4G emergency services network. It will also fund the development of the law enforcement data service, replacing the existing police national computer and police national database.

The funding I have set out represents an unprecedented scale of investment in our police forces, but we must not lose sight of the fact that this is public money that we are spending, and the public expect to see a return on that investment. This Government are clear that the police must continue to focus on improving efficiency and productivity to deliver value for money for the people they serve. Members should be in no doubt: I will be holding the police to account for their spending and performance, because we are a Government driven by the people’s priorities. The demand of these hard-working, honest, law-abiding people is simple: they want to see more police on our streets and less crime, and they expect us, as public servants, to deliver. So, today we have provided the funding needed to do just that.

Automated Facial Recognition Surveillance

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend, in his usual way, raises an extremely important point. It is worth reiterating that there is no intention of our having random surveillance using live facial recognition. The deployment of a camera will be against a known wanted list and against intelligence that an individual is likely to be in a particular location and is either wanted or is intent on harm and causing a crime or, indeed, perpetrating some sort of awful event in a large crowd. This is a tool we would be foolish to neglect, given its potential, but we in this House have a duty to set a framework that strikes a balance between protecting our invaluable civil liberties and keeping the public safe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Does he agree that although personal privacy is a right, anything that is used in the correct manner to prevent crime and apprehend those who have committed a crime must be considered and utilised where appropriate?

[Kit Malthouse]

I do. It is worth repeating what I said at the beginning about how the system works. If an individual passes in front of a camera and there is no match, the information that that individual is there is instantly deleted; if there is a match, the information will be retained for 31 days and then deleted; and even if there is a match, it is for the police officer on the scene at the time to decide, on viewing the evidence, whether to stop the individual. We will see how this goes over the next few months and years, but we hope and believe it will be of enormous benefit in fighting crime.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure the hon. Lady knows we may have a different opinion on this matter, but I understand her point and accept that. She has put her point clearly to the Minister and I appreciate the intervention.

It has been stated that convenience stores lost some £26 million in trade during the Olympics, when Sunday trading rules were abandoned for eight weeks, although many Members in the House asked questions at that time to ensure that things would not go the wrong way. Only large traders would benefit from this move and no matter how the Government put it, the change to allow local authorities to do their own thing will lead to unfair competition, angst among some of the workers and a mishmash of Sunday trading laws. The Government have indicated that this will be introduced on Report, but let me make a final quick point on devolution to councils. Let us imagine that Manchester’s council changes the Sunday opening hours but Liverpool’s does not, that Burnley’s does but Blackburn’s decides not to, that Bournemouth’s changes but Portsmouth’s says, “No, we are not going to do it” and that Darlington changes but Newcastle does not—how ludicrous is that? What a mishmash, dog’s dinner of Sunday opening hours there would be across the United Kingdom. There would be no consistency—it would just be everyone for themselves.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is for businesses to decide whether they open on Sunday, so it is perfectly possible to have that mismatch already when business owners make that decision for themselves?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, but we disagree on the matter—he probably knew that before he got to his feet.

Let me just say this: don’t ignore 66% of the general public and 91% of the workers who say they do not want change. Whether you like or not, those are the facts and they have to be considered. On behalf of those with strong religious beliefs who want to keep Sunday special, those who have concerns about their family time being shattered and altered forever, and shop workers, whose opinions are being ignored, let me say gently to the Government that many Conservative Members are not happy with these changes either. It is not for me to say, because Ministers know their Members better than I do, but I am aware of a certain number who could be the difference between this legislation going through or not. I respectfully suggest to the Government that when we look at this on Report they should consider the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who are not in their places, and many other Conservative Members who have concerns. I believe that if the Government pursue this legislative change on shop opening hours, there is every possibility of them being defeated. They should consider this legislation carefully before they go forward with it. Let us keep Sunday special. They should not ignore the general public and they should not ignore their workers.