Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Louise Haigh(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The people of Bradford are rightly furious about this decision.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument. Does she agree that it is not surprising that the Government are reneging on their promises on the HS2 eastern leg because they did precisely the same thing with regard to electrification of the midland mainline, which was promised by 2015, promised by 2017 and promised by 2019, and we will now be incredibly lucky if it is even delivered by 2034?
Louise Haigh
This is exactly the problem. The problem that Ministers have is whether we can even trust what is being promised in this plan.
In this country we measure infrastructure investment not in months but in years and in decades. When the Victorians laid the foundations for our modern railway, it was a vote of confidence in our future. The integrated rail plan was the Government’s chance to build a railway fit for the century to come that would help us to tackle the climate crisis, but when the north came to cash its cheque, it bounced. At the heart of these broken promises are the missed opportunities for investment, for growth and for business. The OECD could not have been clearer when it said that investment in regional transport drives growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail could have increased productivity by 6%—a £22 billion boost to the northern economy. That opportunity has been squandered.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Louise Haigh(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Haigh
Of course, I understand hon. Members’ and indeed wider society’s concerns about the two-state solution and their frustration about its achievement, but I do not see a one-state solution as a possibility— I do not envisage that ever being acceptable to Israel. From conversations I have had with the Israeli Government and Israelis, it seems unacceptable from their perspective. However, I will make a little progress, if I may.
On the unacceptability of an Israeli-led inquiry, I ask the Minister: what does it say about the upholders of a rules-based international order that one of its principal architects, the UK, would allow the alleged perpetrators of violations of international law to conduct the investigation themselves? It makes an utter mockery of the international order. When repressive regimes the world over look at the actions of the democratic Israeli Government and the muted international condemnation, it is little wonder that they think, “Anything goes.” What more evidence do the Government need to support calls for an independent investigation and to uphold that international order? The UN experts have been very clear.
The basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials require law enforcement officials to refrain from using lethal force on demonstrators “unless strictly unavoidable” to protect their own or others’ lives. Their safety must be in actual danger. Those are the words of the independent UN. So my first ask of the Minister is, will he confirm what wording the Government would support in a UN resolution, and is the UK actively pushing for a more acceptable form of wording at the UN?
The direct and immediate humanitarian consequence of the Israeli security forces’ actions has been on hospitals in Gaza. Even prior to this series of protest-related mass-casualty events, Gaza’s health system was, according to the World Health Organisation, already
“on the brink of collapse”.
A medic who spoke to Medical Aid for Palestinians said that the types and numbers of injuries
“would overwhelm any European hospital and be classified as a ‘major incident’, let alone a local hospital in Gaza with a shortage of disposables and man power for this kind of injury.”
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on the need for a proper international reaction to Gaza’s humanitarian emergency. Does she share my concern that hospitals in Gaza were seeking to deal with an incredibly serious issue yet did not even have some of the basic supplies that would be needed? Gauze, syringes and surgical gowns were all running out. Does she agree that we have a duty as part of the international community to ensure not only that there is not a repeat of the bloodshed but, as Medical Aid for Palestinians has called for, that Gaza’s health sector is supported to develop in line with the needs of its residents?
Louise Haigh
I could not agree more. The health system in Gaza has long been under extreme pressure and on the brink of collapse, but now the medicines and materials needed to treat the wounded are dwindling. My hon. Friend mentioned several of those, and even saline solution is in short supply.
Community Policing
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Louise Haigh(7 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) on securing the debate. I concur with him and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) that policing and tackling crime are fundamental issues of social justice and equality. People are far more likely to be victims of crime if they are poor, an ethnic minority or living in a vulnerable community.
Crime and antisocial behaviour can make people feel under siege in their community. We cannot tackle, prevent, investigate or bring to justice offenders without a robust, well-resourced neighbourhood policing presence, as we have heard clearly today. If we speak to chief constables and policing leaders across the country, as I have done, they tell us exactly that. The model for policing in this country was developed on that basis, and it makes us the envy of the world.
Lilian Greenwood
Is that not precisely why the very people my hon. Friend talks about—police chiefs and police and crime commissioners—write:
“The legitimacy of policing is at risk as the relationship with communities that underpins all activity is fading to a point where prevention, early intervention and core engagement that fosters feelings of safety are at risk of becoming ineffective”?
Is that not precisely why we need today’s debate, and why we need the Minister to respond to their calls for extra funding?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The neighbourhood policing model, which I will come on to, is not just a “nice to have”. It is a fundamental component of our policing model in this country. It is therefore completely disingenuous for the previous Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, to tell the police that their only job is going out there and reducing and attacking crime. The police do much more than that, as I will come on to shortly. Our police, and our police staff, who are often excluded from the debate around police officers, are the eyes and ears of the fight against crime and terrorism. Neighbourhood policing is an irreplaceable component in the battle to keep our communities safe and prevent crime.
Norfolk has been mentioned a couple of times. Other police forces across the country looked on in horror as Norfolk announced that it would be abolishing every single one of its police community support officers in the new year. I hope that Norfolk will look to examples such as my force in South Yorkshire, which merged neighbourhood policing with response two years ago, effectively abolishing it. It now has to divert resources away from response and restore neighbourhood policing because of the disastrous effect of abolishing it. The police chief and police and crime commissioner did that without consultation. Does the Minister think it is appropriate for such a major change to a police force, and such a divergence from a police and crime plan, to happen without consultation? It sets a dangerous precedent for changes to other forces.
As we have heard, crime is up. The crimes that most concern the public are once again on the rise: knife crime, gun crime and all violent crime are up, as is acquisitive crime. What angers us is that all of that was foreseeable and foreseen. If we look across Europe, only three other countries chose to cut their police force by proportionately more than we did. Two of those—Lithuania and Iceland—were reeling from chaotic and deep depressions. It was a political choice to preside over the erosion of neighbourhood policing, and when the police raised the alarm, it was a political choice to attack them for crying wolf, rather than listening to their legitimate concerns.
Only last week, we saw the Home Secretary castigating policing leaders for problems she had created, accusing them of not grounding requests for additional resources in evidence. As we have heard, there is a wealth of evidence. The country’s top counter-terror officer, Mark Rowley, told the Home Affairs Committee that there had been a 30% uplift in counter-terror work. He said that with the huge growth in the number of investigations,
“frankly…we have a bigger proportion of our investigations that are at the bottom of the pile and getting little or no work at the moment.”
It is not enough to say that funding has gone into counter-terrorism, because as we know, for every £1 spent on the Met’s counter-terror budget, £2 has to be spent by that police force on mobilising officers. On top of that, there is an £85 million funding shortfall in the armed officer uplift that the Prime Minister promised the Government would cover, which means that forces are picking up 50% of that cost. Is that the kind of evidence that the Home Secretary was looking for?
How about the document written by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned, and which laid bare the perilous state of neighbourhood policing in this country? Does the Minister accept that the funding settlement means accepting “higher risk for communities” and
“a reduction in the services resilience to cope with major emergencies”?
Will the Minister confirm, as the document laid out, that proactive crime prevention policing is down 25% on the last year alone; that local policing is fading to the point where it is ineffective, due to degradation in local intelligence collection; and that emergency 999 systems are failing too often? When exactly were Ministers planning to tell the public that the funding settlement risks a further 6,000 police officers being cut over the next three years?
The Minister knows the pressures the police are under; he has exactly the same conversations as I do. We have heard this morning about a wide range of forces— from large forces to smaller, rural ones—having record 999 and 101 calls, record levels of unsolved crimes and record mental health and missing persons call-outs. I was a special constable in the London Borough of Lambeth just five years ago, and policing has already changed drastically from what I experienced on the frontline.
As hon. Members have said, the facts have changed since the last budget settlement was agreed. It is time for the budget to change as well. Before the Minister responds and tells us that the police are sitting on reserves of £1.6 billion, £1.7 billion or £1.8 billion—it depends on which side of the bed he gets out of in the morning—will he take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that, for all 43 forces across the country, just £363 million is genuinely usable and is not earmarked for capital spending? Will he also take the opportunity to tell us what models of local policing he has seen work across the country, and how important he sees neighbourhood policing as being to the fundamental British model of policing?
As I have said, neighbourhood policing is not just nice to have; it is vital to our policing system. It underpins the police’s ability to police by consent. It is almost wholly responsible for building and maintaining relationships with communities, and if we reduce our police to nothing more than a blue light that arrives only when the absolute worst has happened, we risk rolling back all the progress that has been made in police accountability and trust over the last generation. We have heard about the erosion of trust in officers and the police if they do not turn up when something as serious as a residential burglary—one of the most invasive and intrusive crimes someone can fall victim to—happens.
Finally, I refer to comments made to the House less than two weeks ago by the Policing Minister:
“we will…ensure that the police have the resources they need to do the job”.—[Official Report, 25 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 132WH.]
We have heard categorically that the police do not have the resources they need to do their job. Will the Minister finally take this opportunity to announce that we will see an end to real-terms funding cuts, which have left our communities exposed?