Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 General Committees

[Mr Vara]

Those who take the trouble to look at the regulations before us will find that they are specific and narrow. I intend to address the issue before us, rather than go into a general debate on pensions.

The revisions proposed today are a specific response to stakeholders and interested parties, and they are intended to improve the system that exists at the moment. I like to think that the public will welcome them, given that we are responding to the points made by them.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

A relevant point was brought up by the Opposition spokesman in relation to a “fit and proper person”. Although I appreciate that the Minister wants to go on to a specific area, it would be useful for the Committee to be aware of some of the potential concerns. I suspect that whatever the Government are doing in this regard will be rather more robust than it is for the Football Association, for whom “fit and proper person” seems an almost meaningless phrase. None the less, given the large sums of money being held on trust for many of our constituents, it is important that at least some thought is put into that, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the matter.

[Mr Vara]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I did intend to touch briefly on the governance of master trusts and fit and proper individuals. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke at length about master trusts and raised several concerns, so I assure her that master trusts already have to meet a number of governance requirements under the current law. A voluntary master trust assurance framework has been developed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in partnership with the Pensions Regulator. It is designed to help trustees to assess the quality of their scheme against an industry-wide quality benchmark. It also helps employers to find a well run pension scheme that can be used to comply with their automatic enrolment duties. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator are exploring whether additional protections would be appropriate for the future regulation of this part of the market.

Well run master trusts can and do offer good deals for consumers and employers, and we are keen that the market develops in the right way. We are aware that potential issues have been suggested and we are working with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that the right protection is in place. Once the measures are firmed up, we will inform the public.

Safer Neighbourhood Policing: London

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Buck]

I hope that does not establish a pattern by which all my hon. Friends seize the opportunity to claim the credit for launching safer neighbourhood policing. In a sense, it does not matter. It was launched in 2004 by the then Labour Mayor of London, and I hope it prefigures important changes in policing by our future Labour Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is sitting to my right.

Safer neighbourhood policing was an important response to a flaw in the way that London was policed over a number of years. It was always about more than just resources. Of course, it was partly about policing numbers, which had been falling for many years and were of great concern to Londoners, but it was also about having a different approach and attitude. The most unimportant aspect of it, although it was not wholly insignificant, was the fact that the area-based policing—the closest thing to the neighbourhood model that existed before 2004—was an unwieldly and clunky model of relating to communities. It did not work effectively, in terms of community participation and setting local priorities, and did not give local police continuity so they could establish the relationships they needed.

The safer neighbourhood policing model, which was introduced in 2004, reflected a commitment to return to communities, in all of their geographical, social and ethnic diversity. That commitment was, in part, informed by the experiences of the 1980s and 1990s. It encompassed, at the extremes, the important lessons we learned from the Scarman report on the terrible riots at the beginning of the 1980s and the Macpherson report. The Met learned important lessons from those terrible events, too.

Safer neighbourhood policing teams quickly changed the face of London policing. Indeed, they even helped to change the face of the police themselves. The police community support officer role was an important route for recruiting Londoners. One of the concerns that some of my colleagues will always have is that many of London’s police are drawn from outside London for different economic reasons. We want London’s police to reflect the face of modern London. The safer neighbourhood team route and the PCSOs, which were a part of that model, were a means of doing that. As Lord Stevens recognised at the time, they helped us to change the face of policing. It was obvious; when we, as local politicians, began to develop relationships with our police, we saw that changes were taking place.

The other critical issue about safer neighbourhood police teams in the early years was the commitment to a core team. At that point, they used the 1-2-3 model, comprising the sergeant, the constables and the three PCSOs. There was a commitment not to remove members of safer neighbourhood police teams to provide aid and assistance to other activities, but to provide the continuity that is crucial in keeping them connected to their local communities and give them time and space to develop important relationships with residents’ and tenants’ organisations, local schools, mosques, churches and youth clubs. In addition to a dedicated sergeant in each ward, they had someone with the skills and experience necessary to make those relationships work. The mere fact of being a sergeant does not give a person the ability to do that, but reflecting a degree of seniority within those police teams is important and it says something significant about the way in which relationships are built and sustained in communities.

I can think of several individuals—I am sure my colleagues and other hon. Members have faces that they can call to mind—who demonstrated a real change in policing style at the neighbourhood level. Stuart Marshall was the Queen’s Park sergeant for many years. He ultimately transferred to use the skills and knowledge he built up in the Queen’s Park ward—a deprived ward that includes the Mozart estate, which is a very challenging community—to continue to tackle antisocial behaviour with City West Homes. Ken Taylor built up a superb track record in the middle of the last decade in countering crack houses, which had become a plague in parts of London and required a new model of relationship building so the police could act quickly and close them down.

Ian Rowing was a long-term sergeant in Church Street. Only a few months ago—he had been in post since 2004—residents fought to keep him in Church Street because of the excellent relationships and local knowledge that he had built up. The residents said to me, “There is nothing he doesn’t know. There are no people he doesn’t know. He knows every corner of his ward. He knows what is going on, and he has built up a trusting relationship with people.” He was taken off, against all our wishes and advice, to fill some of the yawning gaps in the custody service, which are a huge challenge for London police at the moment.

Lawrence Knight is still serving Maida Vale and Little Venice brilliantly. Paul Reading, a member of his team, runs a boxing club in Little Venice. Anybody who wants to see the face of top-quality community policing should see the work he does. Over time, he has worked with hundreds of sometimes very challenging young men in that corner of London, and he has built up an enormous number of relationships based on trust and knowledge. Some of the newer people working now—I am not able to mention them all—include Sean Marshall, Ian Armstrong, Jason Emmett, John Marshall and Mohammed Nouri. They are relatively new, but their work has been absolutely superb.

But the model has changed, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about that. The continuity of the relationships that were built up and of the police teams themselves has largely evaporated. Under this mayoralty, since 2008 the Met has lost 23% of dedicated neighbourhood uniformed officers in London boroughs and more than 2,400 PCSOs since 2010 alone, and it has closed 63 police stations—we were told that their closure would lead to a huge reinvestment in community policing—due to the £600 million of budget cuts over the past four years.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and I have worked together in Westminster during the time that we have been Members of Parliament, and I accept much of what she said about the importance of neighbourhood policing. Equally, we are clearly under financial constraints. No one can deny that that is part and parcel of what is driving the change. Does she accept that we have a model that has been in place now for more than a decade? London is changing quickly, although the City of Westminster is probably changing less quickly than many outer suburbs. Is there not a risk that if we simply persist with that model without looking for a model for the next decade or so, we will run into the problems of the past and have a model that is not fit for purpose for London in the 21st century?

[Ms Buck]

It would be foolish to argue for no change ever, and I am not doing so. Services have to change and adapt, and a number of different trends are going on in London. Our population is rising sharply, which has to be taken into account. Churn and turnover are also rising sharply, which reinforces the importance of community policing. Yes, of course we need to revise our model constantly, but, as I will describe, the changes to the local policing model were an error and took us completely in the wrong direction. Change, yes—but change for its own sake that undermines the core elements of community and relationship building, which is integral to neighbourhood policing, is a mistake.

I of course unreservedly welcome the fact that the autumn statement lifted the threat of a further £800 million- worth of cuts to the Met police, in particular to the remaining police community support officers. The Chancellor was right to heed the warnings of the devastation that cuts of that scale would wreak, but it would be completely wrong to say that we are now in the sunlit uplands. The settlement remains tight. Commissioner Hogan-Howe told the Greater London Authority police and crime committee last month that

“whatever we are going to have to cope with”

will be better than what was originally feared. He continued:

“There is no doubt that we still do have pressures. We have this £50 million for National Insurance that the organisation will have to find for pensions. We have a 1% pay increase baked into the budget… There is a series of other things. It is, no doubt, still challenging.”

On the threat of changes to the funding formula—the complete dog’s breakfast that we saw before Christmas—he said:

“That threat has not gone away because they said they will review it over the next 12 months and so we, on behalf of London, need to keep our eyes on that because London is unique.”

He also highlighted concern about the national and international capital city grant and said that

“we have a bid in. We normally get around £165 million. We thought that it is actually underpaid by about £200 million. We say that we paid £340 million on national issues that are relevant to the capital. They”—

the Home Office—

“accepted the case for £270 million.”

The Met in fact received £170 million. There is a continuing shortfall in national and international capital city status, which is highly relevant, because that underfunding leads to the undermining of the ward-based neighbourhood policing that is my concern.

We know that we remain under pressure and that budget cuts have had a serious impact on police numbers, which has been further complicated by the introduction of the local policing model and the redefinition of neighbourhood policing. However, we hear—we have heard it from the Mayor of London and will probably hear it from the Minister today—that neighbourhood policing in London has increased exponentially, not decreased. The Mayor has claimed that London has 2,600 additional neighbourhood officers, but that is a piece of sophistry. It is a definitional change that conceals a decrease of 2,500 dedicated borough officers and 3,200 dedicated borough PCSOs since 2010, reducing the ward teams from the 1-2-3 model to just one constable and one dedicated PCSO, and an increase in duties for the remaining neighbourhood teams.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is only fair given that the Mayor of London is not here to defend his record. She said that we claim to be increasing police numbers, but the sense was that we were going to redeploy those 2,600 into neighbourhood teams with a localised remit. I accept that that was a change from the remit that was introduced in 2004, but no one was suggesting for one minute that there would be additional police. It was a matter of redeploying police into neighbourhood teams.

[Ms Buck]

As I will briefly refer to at the end, we have seen a redeployment of officers within a reduced total and rebadging, which has led to confusion and a dilution of what neighbourhood policing was originally about.

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime’s review of the local policing model stated last summer:

“Neighbourhood policing under the LPM is distinctly different to the previous ward based 1:2:3 delivery model which was identical across all London wards”.

The previous model’s critical defining element was a core service common to all London wards that could be enhanced or supplemented. Despite the uplift of officers into neighbourhood policing, as referred to by my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the move to a single dedicated ward officer with a single dedicated ward PCSO represents a 77% reduction in ward-based neighbourhood policing when compared to the 1-2-3 model. In my borough of Westminster, we went from a total full-time-equivalent police strength of 1,632 in 2010 to 1,661 in 2012—there were changes in 2011 that meant that 2012 was a better base year—and then down to 1,327 in June 2015. The redistribution under the new service has led to a dramatic drop in our total police strength, which has led to the reduction in neighbourhood policing I have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing the debate and for her excellent speech to kick things off. She is a tenacious and passionate campaigner on behalf of her constituents. In this debate on safer neighbourhood policing in London she has clearly shown that she understands the big issues facing not only her constituents, but our citizens. It is great to see so many London colleagues present for this important debate.

I also pay tribute and put on the record my gratitude to all police and police community support officers, and to all who work for the Metropolitan police. They work day in, day out to protect us and to keep us as safe as possible, preventing crime, detecting those responsible for crime, playing a huge role in maintaining the rule of law and due process, and helping us to feel safer.

There is no point beating about the bush: the very future of safer neighbourhood policing in London as we know it is under threat. As has been said, one of the legacies of Ken Livingstone’s time as Mayor of London was the creation of dedicated community policing teams. I know from my own constituency just how successful and popular safer neighbourhood teams in London were and are. In some of the wards in and around my constituency, there were teams of at least one sergeant, two police officers and three PCSOs. As a resident, a ward councillor and a Member of Parliament, I saw at first hand their work to build community relations. They knew shopkeepers, vicars, priests, imams, neighbourhood watch co-ordinators, resident association members, head teachers and youth leaders. They actually spoke to and engaged with youngsters and made an effort to build relations with parts of our diverse communities that previously had no relations with the police.

The teams’ networks gave them a unique insight into what was happening on the ground and in their patch—proper, old-fashioned community policing: bobbies back on the beat, some would say, not only providing reassurance to the community, but acting as the eyes and ears for gathering intelligence, preventing crimes from happening and clearing them up when they did. That is what policing by consent is all about.

Over recent years, however, safer neighbourhood policing has been devastated in London. While we have had a Conservative Mayor and a Conservative Prime Minister, the number of officers has been steadily eroded. Since May 2010, the number of PCSOs in London has dropped by up to three quarters, with some boroughs—Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Westminster—seeing falls of 80% or more. I have with me some of the figures, which cover the period between May 2010 and September 2015. Hackney has lost 69% of its PCSOs and 29% of its uniformed officers; Harrow, 75% of its PCSOs and 24% of its uniformed officers; Hounslow, 75% of its PCSOs and 11% of its uniformed officers; Kingston—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), whose borough this is, has left the Chamber—75% of its PCSOs and 19% of uniformed officers; and Lambeth, 80% of its PCSOs and 32% of its uniformed officers. Across the whole Metropolitan Police Service, 62% of PCSOs and 11% of uniformed officers have been lost. In some areas, there is one officer left, or at best two. There is no longer the same dedicated team for geographical areas as there once was.

Although crime has been broadly falling over the past decade and a half, too many areas of London are still blighted by antisocial behaviour. Violent crime is up across the city and, worryingly, knife crime is on the rise again.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the broader metric of crime is down. Does that not suggest, to a large extent, that, given the financial constraints that any Mayor or Government would have been under in recent years, the Metropolitan police has done a pretty good job of utilising diminishing resources to ensure that people are kept as safe as possible? While I very much accept some of the concerns about the breakdown of the neighbourhood model to which he refers and the importance of integrating with other agencies, broadly there is a good case for saying that, given those financial constraints, we have done a pretty good job, although we should not be complacent about the future.

[Sadiq Khan]

The police service does a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. However, internet crime is going through the roof, along with serious youth violent crime, knife crime, knife crime with injury, gun crime and gun crime with firearm discharge. I pay tribute to the remarkable work done by police officers and CSOs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

The hon. Lady and I agree on many things, and we have worked together as neighbouring MPs on broadband and the like, but it really is nonsense to suggest that the Government are trying to shrink the state to any great extent. We are still living miles beyond our means—we are borrowing at the rate of £75 billion to £80 billion a year—and the notion that the Government have taken a slash-and-burn approach is quite wrong. I accept that, with some of the austerity agenda, there has had to be some reduction in public spending, particularly in the area we are discussing, but the notion that this is a state-shrinking Government is very far from the truth.

[Meg Hillier]

I think my constituents would beg to differ: this is an area where they do want to see the state visible and active on the streets.

Over the past five years in Hackney, crime has continued to drop. However, Hackney has lost 173, or more than a fifth, of its police officers—in October 2010, it had 770, but there are now 597. It has also seen a dramatic cut in PCSOs, from 100 to 37. There were recently plans to axe all our PCSOs, but thankfully those have been dropped. I echo the really important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North that safer neighbourhood policing was a vital recruitment line for the police—the police in Hackney still do not look like Hackney, so that was really important. It is important that our overstretched officers are supported by good PCSOs.

Let me just highlight how our officers are overstretched. For more than a decade, Operation Bantam has provided an effective response to gang violence in Hackney, which is sadly still a scourge and a challenge for the police, the community and local authorities. There used to be a team of 40 dedicated officers; now there are six, and that is a real concern. I back Hackney Council’s campaign to bring 100 officers back to Hackney to make sure we deliver for the people of my constituency and my borough.

PCSOs were introduced under the last Labour Mayor of London, and I look forward to having a future Labour Mayor of London who recognises their importance. Previously, seven different uniformed officers and wardens patrolled my constituency. Many were funded by the Home Office or the Department for Communities and Local Government, while some were funded by the police or local authorities. There was a crazy mishmash—a multi-coloured rainbow—of different uniforms and different powers, and it made sense to bring those officers together. As a result, however, they were then at risk from these cuts and changes, because of the other pressures on the policing budget, and that is a regret.

There are two key benefits from safer neighbourhood policing. First, there are people on the streets, and having more PCSOs on the streets saves vital police officer time. Those three PCSOs in the ward also really got to know their area, and they often stayed longer than the police, unless they planned to become police officers themselves.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) mentioned the National Audit Office report on policing, which the Public Accounts Committee has looked at. We visited and had evidence from forces around the country. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that many forces do not have good enough data to know the impact of the cuts coming down the line or the needs of policing locally. What is really crucial and really unforgivable, however, is that when the Home Office makes a cut and sends it down the line to the police, it does not have the data to know what the impact will be. I would like the Minister to address that directly.

The funding formula is one issue, and we do not need to dwell on what a mess it was; that is now fairly well acknowledged, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who speaks from the Front Bench, will touch on that. However, there is also cost shunting, which is a consistent concern on the Public Accounts Committee. We see police officers, as the providers of first and last resort, picking up the pieces for other services, but that is not recognised in the funding formula or in cross-Government working. It is really important—I challenge the Police Minister on this—that the police service should not be picking up the pieces because Departments have cut funding and do not recognise the impact on the police. I would like the Minister to tell the House how he will challenge that.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

So much has been said by those who, like me, oppose the Bill, and we have heard some profound and personal stories, so I do not want to go over all that ground.

Fundamentally, I believe that the way in which any society looks after its most disabled, most vulnerable and the elderly says something about it. I fundamentally worry that we are starting down a path of saying, in essence, that the lives of those who are profoundly disabled and who are getting old and are a burden are worth less than those of others. That is an incredibly dangerous path to go down.

I am a former lawyer, albeit a rather less distinguished lawyer than the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), whom I first came across in a college library in Oxford about 30 years ago. I am now a legislator and I profoundly believe that the law’s empire should not be extended into this highly contentious sphere. We should let common sense prevail. Perhaps we are living in a much more litigious society. That is regrettable in many ways, because we need to let guidelines cover the ground that perhaps the former Director of Public Prosecutions was reluctant to cover. I think it is fair to say that close friends and relatives of those who are terminally ill instinctively know the wishes and desires of their nearest and dearest. They should be protected by compassionate understanding rather than by delusory legal safeguards.

I am not a terribly religious person and I certainly do not stand behind many of the religious aspects that influence many colleagues who have spoken, but when all is fundamentally said and done, I instinctively believe that to support assisted dying or euthanasia is simply wrong.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me just finish this point, then I will give way; I welcome the intervention.

In the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the media very quickly started to say. “Well, they might have got off, but maybe they did it anyway.” A campaign then started in the gutter press. It did not matter how good the evidence was, they still came at us. They tried to damage the reputations of those individuals. What worries me is that a Secretary of State determining that a higher level of proof is required to gain compensation will affect the atmosphere that is created.

[Mark Field]

I must admit that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He expresses a specific concern about high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, is there not a concern that this new test of a convincing case brings a whole lot more uncertainty into the law? I dare say that it will be an absolute boon for the lawyers as to precisely where that comes into play. Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, the benefit of what the Minister is saying is that we at least have a certain test that is already set in English law.

[John McDonnell]

In my view, the Government’s test is faulty. I am not convinced of the need for this additional test anyway. At least the House of Lords edges towards some greater level of fairness. I would rather give up on this attempt to redefine.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised the case of Barry George. There has always been an ability in our system for the court awarding compensation to take into account whether the person contributed towards their plight. That has an effect on compensation levels or even whether compensation is awarded at all. By seeking to arrive at some definition in legislation, we are digging ourselves into a very complicated and costly hole, and that cost will be on the individuals who are desperately trying to ensure that they get some compensation for the ill that they have experienced as a result of the state’s failure to live up to a proper process. Additionally, it will be extremely costly for the state. As a result of the weakness in the definition proposed by the Government, we will see case after case being dragged through the English courts and then the European courts. In trying to remedy some form of perceived ill, we will create greater damage to those who have suffered enough.

In addition, the process that is under way at the moment risks making a laughing stock of the Government. As we have heard today, there will be arguments over the difference between “do not commit” and innocence, between “conclusively” and “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The lawyers will make a fortune. I plead for a common-sense approach. The compensation arrangements at the moment are not absolutely perfect, but at least we have managed to secure some compensation for those cases that have been quashed as a result of the state’s failure, and this is about the state’s failure to act accordingly.

There are many other cases. Susan May recently passed away, unfortunately, but her case is still being pursued to demonstrate her innocence, and I think that, rather than it being proved in the long run that the evidential base was the problem, it will be demonstrated that police processes were not adhered to and it will be another case that is eventually quashed. I hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will posthumously provide some proof that she should never have been taken through the courts, but again, the case has been dragged out over years, demonstrating how difficult it is, even when trying to prove the failure of due process, to secure not just a decision but any compensation. The new process will make it even harder to get compensation, drag the decision-making processes out for even longer and prove to be basically unfair.

I support the Lords amendment, because at least it moves us a little further forward, although I think even it will be open to significant challenge in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that requires a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mark Field]

While I agree with the Minister that we should agree with what the Lords have had to say on this matter, I do not necessarily think that it is the result of the workings of democracy—it is anything but. He slightly trivialised the issue of carol singers, but there is a bigger nuisance concern. For example, there might be a sense that if trick or treating was being clamped down on, it would be unfair not to clamp down on other activities, such as carol singing. I think that that is what might have been behind the Lords thoughts on this matter.

[Norman Baker]

I am not quite sure what was in the Lords thoughts. Other examples were given—bellringers and so on—and nobody in this country would want, in any way, to limit the activities of bellringers. I fear that the Government’s honest attempt to deal with genuine antisocial behaviour has been misconstrued, either inadvertently or otherwise, but we are where we are. We have accepted the form of words—“harassment, alarm or distress”—which was wanted by their lordships.

The next set of amendments in this group relate to under-18s. Lords amendments 3, 4 and 12 enable an applicant for an injunction to apply to the youth court for permission to have cases involving respondents, who are both over and under 18 years of age, to be heard together in the youth court if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the youth court does not grant the application, the hearings will be separated, with the adults in the county court and the under-18s in the youth court. By linking these hearings, we will help to put victims first.

Lords amendment 10 brings us to the prohibitions that can be included in an injunction where the respondent is under 18. As originally drafted, clause 12 meant that the injunction could be used to exclude a respondent of any age from his or her home in cases of violence or risk to others. However, in the Lords, concerns were expressed, by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Hamwee, on whether it would ever be appropriate to exclude under-18s from their own home on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment 10 limits the exclusion provisions to injunctions where the respondent is over 18. Where it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the family home, there are sufficient powers in other safeguarding legislation to ensure that that is possible without the need to resort to an injunction.

Other amendments and provisions in this group relate to tenancy injunctions, the criminal behaviour order, dispersal powers, the public spaces protection order, the recovery of possession of dwelling houses and the issuing of statutory guidance. I will be very happy to pick up on any questions that Members have on any of those particular matters.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, although it is interesting that he bows to the wisdom of the Lords on this issue, but not on miscarriages of justice. The Lords amendments, particularly on the threshold for injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, improve the Bill, taking the threshold from “nuisance and annoyance” to “harassment, alarm or distress”, but overall we feel that the Bill still weakens the powers against antisocial behaviour, which is of growing concern to people. It is a badly worded Bill thrown together on the usual principle of, “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it”, which the Government seem to operate under. Large parts of the Bill will not offer people the protection they need.

[Mark Field]

I think the hon. Lady is being too sceptical about the genesis of these provisions. As a central London MP, I do not think that everything about the old ASBO regime was bad; elements worked well for many of my constituents. I know that Westminster City council has expressed concerns, which were raised in another place, but it is still a little unfair to suggest that nothing good is coming from the Bill. We will have to see how it works in practice.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that in many cases ASBOs worked. I have seen them work in my own area, as he has in his. As he said, it remains to be seen how the Bill will work, but I look forward to debating it in the future.

I want to comment on a number of other amendments in this group that the Minister did not mention, but I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. We are grateful that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments on forced marriage originally moved on Report by my noble Friend Baroness Thornton and later taken up by the Government, who tabled similar amendments ensuring that where a person lacks capacity an offence would be committed where conduct was carried out for the purpose of forcing someone into a marriage. It is arguable, I agree, that this is the case under present law, but the amendment makes it clear. It is sensible because it ensures that where a person is incapable of understanding the implications of their decision, the new offence can be committed even without violence, threats or coercion. This will also apply in Scotland.

Much work still needs to be done on forced marriage, and I commend the work of the forced marriage unit and all those working in this area, but the House is making it clear in the Bill that British children and young people, whatever the colour of their skin, and including the most vulnerable who lack capacity, will have the same protections in law as anyone else, and that is to be welcomed. There are many things in the Bill on which we might disagree, but on this issue, the House is united. These provisions will take us forward.

The Government’s firearms amendments seem fairly minor: one closes the loophole around antique firearms, which seems perfectly sensible, while the other relates to suspended sentences. Currently, a three-year jail term bans someone from owning a firearm for life and a three-month sentence leads to a five-year ban. The amendment treats a three-month suspended sentence in the same way, which we welcome, although it does not go far enough. When someone has a conviction, the police have grounds for refusing an application. The problem comes when there is no conviction but the police have evidence of violent behaviour in the past. That was why we wanted an amendment to provide that where the police found credible evidence of domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, a firearms licence could be refused. No sensible gun owner has anything to fear from such a provision.

The case of Michael Atherton is the one that I must refer to here. He was convicted of the murders of his partner, Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. He had a long history of domestic violence, but he was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer’s comments on his application were chilling. He wrote:

“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. Would like to refuse, have we sufficient to refuse re public safety?”

Durham constabulary decided it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse and people died as a result. This is an issue that the Opposition will want to return to in the future because it is essential to keep women safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I do not have the list of exactly who proposed what. The Government amendment we have is neutral; the one that Labour peers supported in the other place was not tenure-neutral. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a flaw in it, although the other principle was there.

I welcome the change, although I remain surprised by the position of the Opposition, who felt that the version that left this place was both too draconian and too liberal. I am glad that their position has moved in a more liberal direction. The new approach is far better than the failed system of ASBOs, which many young people collected as a badge of honour. A huge number of people broke them; they simply did not work. I think that this non-criminalising approach will work much better.

Let me turn now to some of the other issues. Lords amendment 10 is important and concerns the principle that we should not be using these rules to throw children out of their own homes. The Lords pushed for that, and it is a shame that we did not manage to get it fixed in this place. The importance of care for the under-18s should have been emphasised more strongly during the Bill’s earlier stages, and I am glad that it has been emphasised more strongly now. This is another of the issues that were dealt with by the Home Affairs Committee. I am also pleased that Lords amendment 11 proposes the removal of clause 13, because it discriminated on the basis of tenure.

Lords amendments 23 and 24 deal with the rights of free expression and free assembly. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that we should ensure that dispersal powers were not used in a way that could damage those rights. Before my hon. Friend became a Minister in this Department, the Government moved some of the way towards this, and I am glad that he has now been able to persuade them to move the whole way, so that we can protect all forms of free expression and free assembly.

Lords amendments 59 to 64 deal with cases of riot. Riot is of course very serious, and we have already seen what it can lead to in this country. As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister said that he wanted stronger powers to deal with the families of people who were rioting. Many of us felt that, although we could understand the tensions that existed at the time, his suggestion went too far. It did not seem appropriate to throw everyone out of a house because a 16-year-old child had committed a minor offence where a riot was happening. I do not in any sense condone either the riot or the behaviour, but throwing an entire family out of their home seems to be a disproportionate response. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in this regard, which has led to the proposal that an automatic eviction should take place only if the offence is committed by an adult, and only if it is a serious, indictable offence. A trivial offence that happened to be committed near a riot would not lead to such an eviction; nor would an offence committed by a child.

Finally, let me raise two issues that we had very little time to discuss during our initial debates in this House, and that were not particular topics of interest at that stage. The first involves surveillance and the Terrorism Act 2000. Lords amendment 102 and related amendments deal with the powers of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about the surveillance commissioners and their decisions. The IPT does not necessarily work as well as it needs to, and it is not as transparent and open as it needs to be, but I am glad that we are taking a step towards more transparency. Surveillance oversight is an extremely important subject, and the Bill does not finish what we need to do about it. There is much more to be done, but although the amendments represent just a tiny piece of the jigsaw, I welcome them.

Lords amendment 100 and related amendments deal with schedule 8, which amends schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act. Schedule 7 became very topical at the time of the detention of David Miranda. I am pleased that, after a great deal of argument in this House, we have managed to get some changes made in the House of Lords. People must be questioned within an hour of detention, reviews must take place within two hours of that, and people’s right to consult a solicitor is made clear. That fundamental right was omitted by the Terrorism Act when it was passed by the last Government. There is much more to be done about that as well, but I am very pleased with all the amendments. I commend the Minister and his team for their work, and look forward to our passing the amendments promptly.

[Mark Field]

I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it is a shame that the Government did not take more account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, relying instead on the other place. I accept that all too often, whichever Government are in play, the electoral arithmetic ensures that legislation is rushed through and guillotined here in the House of Commons, and some sensible suggestions are then made in the House of Lords, many of which—as in this instance—we end up not seeking to oppose. Given the relative paucity of legislation in the House of Commons over the next 15 months, I hope that we will pay the House a little more respect, and ensure that whatever Bills come before us during the fifth year of this five-year Parliament are given proper scrutiny.

I support what the Government are doing in Lords amendments 40, 41 and 44 to 47, which relate to public bodies that can issue a public spaces protection order. That has particular resonance in my constituency, and I am glad that a number of friends—in the broadest sense—of the City of London corporation in another place were able to make some important changes. Numerous other bodies which operate open spaces under local Acts—such as the Wimbledon and Putney commons conservators, to name but two of them—will also benefit from what the Government are doing. The proposed new clause would enable bodies other than local authorities administering open spaces under byelaws to use public spaces protection orders. I believe this is particularly relevant to trustees or local conservators who operate under byelaws inferred by private Acts of Parliament, many of which go back not just many decades but some centuries. I hope the Minister agrees with that point.

The City of London corporation operates some of the most important open spaces in London and the south-east, including Epping forest and Hampstead heath. There are also important local authority parks. In Newham there is West Ham park and there is Queen’s park in the London borough of Brent. It was often under private Acts of Parliament, frequently through bequests of what were the curtilage of large mansion houses, that these local parks and amenities were founded, often back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Conservators have exactly the same issues as local authorities in terms of the public open spaces they administer, so it is sensible to include these places in order not to have duplication but to ensure there is not an opportunity for some of these powers to slip through the net. Conservators are not required to use the orders, and they can keep to the local byelaws if they so wish. If they do make an order, however, and the local authority for the area makes its own, the local authority’s order will take precedence. That is right.

These clauses are sensibly drafted. The powers of the City of London corporation would not in any way usurp those of the relevant local authority, but this does provide a belt-and-braces approach to ensure there is a proper focus on public order within those important open spaces.

I wish the Minister and Government well in getting this change into the Bill and I hope there will be no opposition from any corner of this House.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long. I want to touch briefly on the dangerous dogs element of the Bill. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of which I am a member published its report on dog control and welfare on 6 February 2013. In that report we recommended that all dog-related issues should be consolidated in a comprehensive Bill. This would pull together the fragmented legislation referring to dog control and welfare and allow us to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where necessary.

Such consolidation is essential because there are yawning gaps in our legislation. Voluntary compliance with guidelines on responsible ownership has proved to be limited and slow, but that is not surprising as there are 8 million dogs in this country—a huge number. The vast majority are well cared-for, kept and controlled, but there are exceptions. Dangerous dogs have killed seven people, five of them children, since 2007. In my own constituency a small child had her eye savaged by a West Highland terrier, but more about that later because there are certain circumstances there which I want the Minister to cover when he responds to the debate. Dangerous dogs have attacked specially trained dogs for the blind, causing untold grief and difficulties—and let us not forget the postmen and postwomen who all too often are assaulted by animals as they deliver our mail.

Irresponsible dog breeders, driven only by greed, run puppy farms where a single bitch can legally produce up to five litters a year. That is not good for the welfare of the bitch or her litter. Subsequent failure to socialise these puppies properly has the potential to create more badly behaved and dangerous dogs.

Under the law as it stands, it has proved impossible to prosecute the owners of vicious dogs if the attack takes place on private property. In such cases it has also frequently proved difficult to prove ownership. The proposals in this Bill include many of the Committee’s recommendations on dog control and welfare, such as compulsory micro-chipping by 2016, stricter oversight of puppy farms, and extending dangerous dogs legislation to private property in clauses 98 and 99, and I wholly endorse them. The tougher sentences in the two amendments in question for those whose dogs attack, injure or kill people or guide dogs for the blind are also necessary and proportionate.

I have just one concern, which I ask the House to consider. If we legislate to allow enforcement agents on to private property to handle or destroy a dangerous dog after an attack, we are impinging on important rights to privacy in our own homes. While I—and, I am sure, the other members of the EFRA Committee—fully endorse the amendments to the current legislation, any new legislation must be careful to protect those rights.

I want to give an example from my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it, because I would be interested to hear his response. A couple and their four-year-old daughter were invited to a party next door. It was a dog party, and there were several dogs—and several people—there. In the resulting mêlée of people wandering around and having tea, the couple lost sight of their daughter. Suddenly, they heard the most appalling noise. There had been some form of communication with a dog by the girl, but we do not know whether she had poked it in the eye or put her hand in its mouth. Whatever she had done, the dog—a West Highland terrier, which had done no harm at all up till then—responded by leaping up and latching on to the left side of her face. It would not let go, and caused horrific damage to her eye.

I ask the Minister’s guidance on this point. I assume that, under the proposed new law, the lady who owned the dog would face a criminal prosecution. If that is the case, the change in the law will provide a salutary warning to dog owners who keep their dog in their home, as many millions of people do. When the law is passed, they will have to be very careful what they do with their dog when inviting people into their house. I suspect that not many people have even considered the matter up to now. I have two dogs, and I do not think about whether they are going to attack anyone who comes into my house. From now on, however, I am going to have to think carefully. If a child comes into my house, I am going to have to think about whether my dogs could assault that child.

Obviously, it goes without saying that a dog owner must take responsibility for their dog, but I raise this question because I wonder whether the process of the law has been thought through by everyone outside this place. Can the Minister confirm that, if the new law had applied at the time of that incident, the lady in question would not have faced five years in jail, and that the judge would have considered all the facts of the case and perhaps recommended that the dog be put down, with the lady facing no further consequences? Will the Minister also tell us how and when the enforcers would go into the owner’s house in such a case? If a complaint was made, would they go in on the same night to remove the dog, informing the owner that it could either be put down or returned, depending on the result of the ensuing investigation? I ask the Minister to clarify those points if he can.

I assume that if the dog owner were someone with a bad reputation—let us be blunt: if they were well known to the police for breeding properly vicious dogs, rather than West Highland terriers, for ill-gotten gains—the enforcer would simply go into the house and take the appropriate action. That is exactly as it should be. Such a case would be very different from the one that I have described, in which a perfectly innocent lady was going about her business when an appalling accident happened. Yes, that accident could have been avoided if the dog had been locked up, and that is the point that I would like to have clarified. I welcome the Lords amendments to allow people who have dogs on private property to be reached by the law. That is incredibly important, but I would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the example that I have raised.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

I will rise to detain the House on Third Reading, but I must say that this is an excellent Bill because it deals with the nonsense of the fact that ASBOs were never enforced and were therefore not doing what the previous Labour Government intended they should do when they were introduced. I will make those points on Third Reading, but with that I will resume my seat and let one of my colleagues address the House.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for welcoming me in that way.

I wish to put on the record a few of my concerns about the Bill’s impact on the ability of inner-city local authorities to deal with particular instances of antisocial behaviour; I know that the Minister has been informed about them by the redoubtable cabinet member, Nickie Aiken, from Westminster city council. I shall raise two main areas of concern, to which I would appreciate the Minister giving consideration, and one specific amendment, which I suspect will have to be moved in another place in due course.

First, on powers of arrest and direct access to the criminal justice system, criminal injunctions are, as we all know, more effective than civil injunctions in reducing high-level antisocial behaviour, which damages communities and harms the reputation of central London. The Bill proposes to replace ASBOs on application and ASBOs on conviction with IPNAs and criminal behaviour orders—CBOs—respectively. Breaching a CBO will automatically be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an IPNA will not. Local authorities will be able to apply for an IPNA, but will not be able to apply for a CBO. Therefore, local authorities such as Westminster city council—in a former life this would have applied to the shadow Minister in his role at the London borough of Lambeth—will no longer be able to apply directly for any order or injunction on antisocial individuals or groups that would lead to criminal proceedings in the event of a breach. Instead, local authorities, housing associations, Transport for London and even police chiefs will have to apply separately for an IPNA arrest warrant. Alternatively, local authorities will have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with the Crown Prosecution Service, which I fear will be operating with increasingly limited resources and capabilities, to place CBOs on antisocial individuals.

[Mr Steve Reed]

At a time when the police have had to suffer a 20% cut in funding, is it appropriate to expect them to shoulder the additional burden of £1.5 million per annum in pursuing breaches of IPNAs?

[Mark Field]

I certainly do not think the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers reflect the cuts at ground floor level in the work that can be done by our local police. However, all of us appreciate that we are living in financially constrained times and will be doing so for many years to come. Where I suspect I share some of the concerns that he has expressed, not just tonight but during the passage of this Bill, is about a severe weakening of the ability of local authorities, in conjunction with the police, to deal with elements of antisocial behaviour.

[Simon Hughes]

I and a former leader of Lambeth council and others have dealt with these issues for a long time. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, I understand it and it will be made from experience. I hope he will tell us what he and Westminster city council cabinet members and officers think might be the right answer. None of us has a perfect solution. We are all trying to find the best combination of tools to have in the box.

[Mark Field]

Naturally, I will try to be constructive. I wholly agree that the lower level nuisance and annoyance behaviour covered by an IPNA does not always warrant the threat of criminal prosecution, which perhaps happened in the past with ASBOs. Among the concerns expressed earlier was that elements of those ASBOs were not being properly enforced. We should rightly look to avoid criminalising the country’s youth wherever possible, but in practice the specific problems that we face with, for example, the very professional, aggressive begging on the streets of Westminster, literally within yards of where we are all sitting tonight, can currently be tackled only through the use of ASBOs on application. We rely heavily on the genuine threat of arrest to protect victims and to deter professional aggressive beggars, who are completely different from the 16-year-old who has got into trouble by graffitiing a bus-stop, for example. We lose that threat under the new proposals.

I want also to speak briefly about the antisocial behaviour committed by people with no fixed UK address. From the experience in Westminster city council area, but also in the City of London area that I represent, I know that tackling antisocial behaviour often involves dealing with organised aggressive begging gangs from across the EU. I fear that we will hear a lot more of this in the months to come. Some individuals travel to the UK in large numbers, with the sole intention of doing a short, but profitable begging stint before returning to their home. These people enter the UK according to their rights as EU citizens, and cannot currently be deported unless they remain in the country for longer than three months or commit a criminal offence. While they are in the UK, and particularly while they are here in central London, they have no fixed address and are completely transient in nature, with many sleeping rough.

Where we have previously dealt with such individuals through ASBOs on application, under the IPNA system the local authority will be able to apply for an arrest warrant only after a breach has occurred, by which time the individual in question may well have left the country, entirely unchallenged, to return at a future date. These people are deliberately off the grid, and we must have some legislation in place that closes this potential loophole and does not actively encourage the gaming of the system.

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Might provisions in other statutes be used, under which, where a crime had been committed, people could be deported without an ASBO having to be made against them?

[Mark Field]

I cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse, but my hon. and learned Friend knows considerably more about these matters than I do. He makes a relevant point, which is that we do not necessarily have to go entirely down that route. The ASBO legislation and this concurrent legislation is designed to look at the whole issue of antisocial behaviour in a constructive and codified way. The problems to which I have referred apply not simply to the City of Westminster, Southwark or inner-London boroughs. Increasingly, it will become apparent in places such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, so we should look at it fairly urgently. Without being overly negative about the potential open-door arrival of a significant number of people from Romania and Bulgaria, there is no doubt that some of the specific problems in central London in recent months have come disproportionately from groups who have already come to this country from those other EU states. We need to ensure that local authorities are given a chance to take action. As such, I feel strongly that the Bill should be amended better to reflect the circumstances that affect inner-city areas, recognise the particular challenges that are faced in the UK’s major cities and specifically enable a court to grant IPNAs with automatic powers of arrest in a wider variety of circumstances.

This matter will have to be dealt with in amendments in another place. To answer directly the question put by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I hope that we will have a further amendment to clause 3 to add an additional subsection applicable only in major city centres or other designated areas, which varies the conditions under which a power of arrest attachment can be made to include wording such as “deliberately organised antisocial behaviour”. That will have to be dealt with in our further deliberations on the Bill.

I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I accept that the Minister is aware of some of the specific concerns for Westminster, but I also very much accept that he may wish to deal with this in writing rather than going into it in great detail this evening.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Norman Baker)]

May I take the opportunity of my first outing in my new capacity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their good wishes and congratulations. I am deeply grateful for the support that has been shown across the House over the last week following my appointment. I look forward to working constructively with Members on both sides of the House as we take this agenda forward.

I am also delighted to see my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), in the Chamber. I pay tribute to him for the significant work that he has done as a Home Office Minister. His attention to detail and his commitment have been exemplary, and I look forward to trying to emulate that in my role. I also welcome the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to his new role on behalf of the official Opposition.

I will now deal with the various Government new clauses and amendments. Overwhelmingly, they follow up points raised in Committee, which is a testament to the effectiveness of the scrutiny the Bill underwent upstairs. There are a number of drafting and technical amendments in this large group. So as not to delay the House unduly, I will focus my remarks on the amendments of substance.

The injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance and the criminal behaviour order are important new powers to deal with individuals who commit antisocial behaviour. Courts will be able to use them both to prevent certain behaviour and to require positive actions—for example, addressing a drug or alcohol problem that is an underlying cause of an individual’s antisocial behaviour.

The Committee agreed non-Government amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) to clauses 1 and 21. These would require a court to avoid any conflict with a person’s caring responsibilities when attaching such conditions. This would be in addition to the duties that were already in the Bill, to ensure that conditions are suitable and enforceable and, so far as practicable, to avoid conflicting with a person’s religious beliefs, work, educational commitments or any other court order imposed on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane said in Committee, we always expected courts to take account of caring responsibilities, which are clearly a relevant factor in ensuring that conditions are suitable and enforceable, and I repeat that for the benefit of the House.

There is a concern that references to caring responsibilities might weaken the new powers in practice. A number of the agencies that would use and enforce injunctions and orders tell us that there is a real danger that specifically including caring responsibilities in the Bill would make it more difficult to secure appropriate conditions, and that is not in the interests of the victims that these injunctions are designed to protect. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we do expect these matters to be taken into account by courts considering injunctions as they relate to caring responsibilities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—I think he has gained a north somewhere; Bermondsey North and Southwark—asked why the words on religious belief were qualified with the phrase “as far as practicable”. I am advised that it is similar to the right to manifest one’s religion set out in article 9 of the convention. The right is qualified and can be limited where necessary and proportionate. For example, it is not necessary for someone who professes to be a Christian to attend church every single day. I hope that is helpful and answers his point.

The Committee also agreed an amendment to clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to add head teachers and principals of further education colleges to the list of persons who can apply to a court for an injunction. The intention was to tackle bullying in schools and colleges. I agree that it is vital that powers are in place to address that problem, which blights the lives of too many young people, but we need to get the detail right. She rightly referred to the consultation that has taken place and the responses to it, and I am grateful for her analysis and her decision on how to proceed. However, I want to assure her that we have drafted guidance to explain how the injunction could be used to address bullying, with the help of front-line professionals and the BeatBullying organisation, which has advised us on the matter. I entirely accept her point about online bullying, a matter I was considering only this afternoon in the Home Office. I can assure her that, as far as I am concerned, bullying will not be taken off the agenda.

Amendments 10 to 15 to clause 12 relate to the power to exclude the subject of an injunction from their home. As I have said, the Bill provides for prohibitions to be attached to an injunction. In extreme cases where the antisocial behaviour has involved actual violence or the threat of violence against another person, or where there is a significant risk of harm, someone can be excluded from their home, but only if they live in social housing.

Metropolitan Police Service

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this important debate.

Ten short days ago, my constituency was home to an appalling tragedy. A 16-year-old boy, Hani El Kheir, was brutally murdered in the street. Walking along Lupus street, Pimlico, literally a mile or a mile and a half away from here, in the early evening, Hani and his girlfriend were approached by a group of 10 to 20 youths carrying a range of weapons. When he tried to escape, he was tripped and set upon, receiving a number of stab wounds as he was attacked, one of which pierced his heart. Having completed their deed, the pack of killers left Hani bleeding in the street. The emergency services arrived swiftly, taking only five to 10 minutes to get to the scene of the crime. Medical staff worked hard, but Hani eventually died some two hours after the attack.

Hani was the only child of Pauline Hickey. As a father of two young children, I cannot even begin to imagine her anguish. She has lost the most precious gift, a son with whom she had, as she put it, an “unconditional and unbreakable bond.”

Everyone here will have read the newspaper reports of the attack, and I suspect in my constituency such attacks bring more headlines than is perhaps the case in some parts of outer London. I do not wish to repeat those reports other than to say that the witness accounts were chilling and posed questions about how such people operate in our society. I am well aware that comparable brutalities occur on the streets of Harrow, Tottenham, Hackney and Peckham that are no less a tragedy because of their location.

All but one of the constituents who contacted me after Hani’s murder were women, and I suspect that such cases strike a particular chord with mothers, daughters and sisters who sympathise so deeply with Pauline Hickey. One of my correspondents said:

“Hani’s death is a tragic example of the escalating brutality that our young men in the area are being exposed to.”

A number of warrants have been issued across London and local ward resources have been beefed up, with weapons sweeps conducted on local estates in Pimlico and beyond. Police have been working closely with Westminster city council and information is being shared with local schools, especially with regards to the siblings of any victims and suspects arrested in relation to this high-profile case, and there have been many arrests. A big public meeting is taking place tomorrow to bring all of us together—police, council, residents and elected representatives—to discuss how we might prevent similar tragedies in future.

I have mentioned this in the House several times, as has been mentioned, but it is worth repeating that Westminster city council, under the energetic chairmanship of Councillor Nickie Aiken, who is a cabinet member, has pioneered innovative work with gangs in this city. Under the “Your Choice” programme led by the integrated gangs unit, gang members are given real choices. If they wish to leave their gang, they are helped with employment, mentoring and support. If they choose not to, serious enforcement action will be taken, including clamping down on those living in social housing who create misery for their neighbours through antisocial behaviour. I am glad to see that the Mayor of London is committed to rolling such measures out.

Many criticisms are made of the Metropolitan police, particularly in these difficult financial times. In the aftermath of Hani’s murder, I received some relating to the fact that there seemed to be a visible police presence only after the tragedy. Where had those bobbies on the beat been before? If they had been more visible, could they have prevented Hani’s murder? Those are the sorts of question coming through.

I confess that I do not recognise some of the criticisms that have been made by the two hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and, I suspect, will be made later by others among this great phalanx of London Labour MPs. [Interruption.] I felt as outnumbered as this in 2001, when I was first elected to the House. It may happen again in future.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman serves his constituents well, but I am surprised that Conservative Members from Barnet, Croydon and other places are not here to join him in this important debate for London.

[Mark Field]

This is an important debate, and rest assured that Conservative MPs have had various meetings on these matters with Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy Mayor of London, and with the Mayor himself.

The new local policing model reflects the financial constraints that any Mayor, of whatever colour, would have experienced. Part of it involves making police more accountable to local people. One reason for closing down our local police stations is that we are trying to put more money into bobbies on the beat rather than necessarily into bricks-and-mortar institutions. There will be an extra 2,600 officers in the safer neighbourhoods scheme as the role of safer neighbourhoods teams changes to cover reassurance and enforcement. Neighbourhood officers will be available for far longer hours, and neighbourhood inspectors will be a key point of accountability. That is good news, and I hope that the Met starts connecting with local people so that communities can work together to protect our youngsters.

[Mr Thomas]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the figures from the police and crime committee of the Greater London Assembly show that by 2015, there will be 202 fewer police constables patrolling the streets of Westminster than there were in 2010, and that does not take into account how many police community support officers will go as well. Even according to the Mayor’s figures, there will be significantly fewer police officers in the hon. Gentleman’s borough.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, I would be grateful if he could draw his remarks to a conclusion.

[Mark Field]

I shall. I appreciate that many others want to speak. I just wanted to mention that particular local tragedy.

I fear that the voice of young people is often being lost in this debate. That is why Westminster city council is working in partnership with the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion to deliver the youth secure streets programme, in which young people and community representatives develop a local strategy for dealing with some of these issues. In my constituency, particularly in the Ebury Bridge and Churchill Gardens estates, a lot of effort has gone into reassuring residents—in many months gone by, not just in the last 10 days—and encouraging them to come forward. That has often been something of a missing link.

There is so much more I should like to have said, and I am sure that many other Members will say those things. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I recognise that these are deep concerns across the political divide. As London MPs, we feel that they are our particular concerns and problems, and I hope that he will give us some reassurance when he sums up the debate.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, by the power vested in me, I impose an official four-minute time limit from now on. I remind Members that if there are interventions, you get an extra minute, but let us try to limit them, or someone will be squeezed out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because we are not concerned only with the direct police budget. Resources also come through the community safety fund, which was mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. In the last year that I set it, it was £13.2 million for London. This year, it is £5.3 million, and next year it is disappearing altogether. That is £13.2 million in the last year of a Labour Government but that is now no more, in the third year of a Conservative and Liberal Administration.

[Mark Field]

I am glad that the shadow Minister acknowledged that some serious crime rates are coming down in London. We all have great concerns—I share many of those expressed today—but is it not also fair to say that, given the financial constraints that any Government would be under, to be brutally honest, there is vanishingly little between what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in office today, in the sort of grants that they could give via the Home Office to the Mayor, and what has been happening in the past year?

[Mr Hanson]

Let me gently slap the hon. Gentleman down. There is a difference between the 20% cut on policing introduced by this Government in England and Wales and the 12% reduction that we had planned, which had the support of Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, which said that it was deliverable and achievable, and that we could have maintained police numbers. The difference in London between the votes he has voted for and the votes that we have voted for amounts to, at the moment, £230 million lost to London policing. That is the difference between him and me. Next Wednesday, he will have an opportunity to look again at the Minister’s budget. I can give the Minister a hint. Just between you and me, Mr Streeter, we will be voting against his budget next Wednesday. My right hon. and hon. Friends will do so because that budget needs to be reviewed.

My hon. Friends have mentioned gang and youth violence funding, gangs and knife violence funding and substance misuse funding. They are all difficult challenges for which funding has been lost. On the diversity issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, for example, in London 34% of PCSOs are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and when we lose 986 of them by 2015, the effect on the numbers of black and ethnic minority police officers and PCSOs on the streets of London will be disproportionate.

In conclusion, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made valuable points. We need to look again at the budget. When we reject it, the Minister will have the opportunity to go back and think about it again. We need to look at accountability, because now the London deputy mayor responsible for policing is not as accountable as the police board was in the past. We need to look at the role of the Met in national policing. We need to look at how we can improve diversity—perhaps the Minister can tell me why the last time the Home Office diversity group met was when I chaired it in December 2009. It has not met since, according to his parliamentary answers. The issue is real, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken for London, I hope the Minister will listen.

Sport and Youth Crime

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Today’s debate on the effects of sport on youth crime falls, in some ways, in the shadow of last summer’s riots, and from his appearance yesterday on “Newsnight”, I know that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is up to speed with the subject. This debate is set against a longer-term concern about the rising problem of disengaged youth, which has disturbed Governments of all persuasions for decades, and a belief by many in the sporting community that sport can and does play a positive role in re-engaging young people and refocusing their lives.

Nelson Mandela has said:

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire… It speaks to youth in a language they understand. It is more powerful than governments in breaking down social barriers”,

and I want to use this debate not just to say that sport is good for its own sake, although many people believe that numerous benefits come with it. Studies of the benefits of youth participation in sport suggest that sport in and of itself is not enough to refocus or turn around the lives of disadvantaged young people and that what is required is a structured programme of support alongside the sporting activities. It is not simply a case of putting on ad hoc sporting events or creating new sporting facilities, but about how programmes are managed.

This is not simply a way of saying that Government intervention is necessarily a bad thing, or that Government agencies and public bodies are unable to deliver programmes that successfully intervene in young people’s lives. Support, including financial support, from the Government and their agencies is incredibly important to the success of such projects, but a good deal of new evidence suggests that sporting organisations and brands that have credibility in the eyes and lives of young people are often more successful in achieving the breakthrough that we all seek.

There has been a debate among people with an interest in sporting interventions in the lives of young people. People instinctively feel that such interventions are the right thing to do, and they have anecdotal evidence that they make a positive difference, but if there is any criticism, it is that there is perhaps a lack of robust data about exactly how they reduce criminal behaviour. I want to highlight some case studies that show the positive impact of such interventions on reducing crime and on antisocial behaviour and in improving the general well-being and educational performance of young people. The studies, of necessity in some ways, focus on relatively small numbers of people in relatively small geographical areas, and I would like the Government to consider some broader research that would seek to demonstrate the value for money and the performance of sporting interventions with young people.

I want to thank a number of sporting and other young people’s organisations that run such programmes and have provided information about them for the debate today—in particular, the Premier League, with its Kickz programme; the Manchester United Foundation; Charlton Athletic Community Trust; the Rugby Football Union; Sky Sports; the Sport and Recreation Alliance; First Light, which works in the arts; and Catch22. Their formal programmes are largely delivered by volunteers from the communities that they serve, and so I also want to thank the many volunteers who make them a success and the hundreds and thousands of people who work every day to deliver youth sporting projects, not just for disadvantaged young people but for all young people across the country. Their work is incredibly valuable and important to us all.

I want to look at four important areas that are of relevance to the debate: sporting programme interventions that help to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour; interventions that engage young offenders, both in young offenders institutions and after release; programmes for improving school attendance and attainment; and initiatives that help to rebuild young people’s self-worth.

We must consider costs; none of these programmes is delivered for free, although many are delivered with the support of the private and charitable sectors. We must also consider the costs of doing nothing, of maintaining the status quo. Based on 2010 figures, the National Audit Office has calculated that more than 200,000 criminal offences a year are committed by people aged between 10 and 17 at an annual cost to the country of up to £11 billion. It costs up to £100,000 a year to keep someone in a young offenders institution, and the number of 15 to 17-year-olds in prison has doubled over the past 10 years. During the five days of riots in August, 26% of the rioters were under 17, and 74% were under 24. There is not a male bias in the programmes and activities—they are open to boys and girls—but it is worth noting that 90% of the rioters were male.

First, on reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, one of the longest running and most successful projects is Kickz. It has been run by the Premier League for five years, has involved contact with more than 50,000 young people across 113 projects in some of the UK’s most deprived areas and has been supported by 43 professional football clubs. Kickz targets 12 to 18-year-olds, and its projects are football-led but include other sports and programmes designed to encourage young people’s awareness of health issues. The schemes typically take place three nights a week throughout the year, which is important in that they are frequent and have a very fixed structure. Kickz and the Premier League believe that one in 10 of the young people who initially attend the programmes as participants go on to volunteer, delivering the programmes for other young people, and they say that 398 people have gained full-time employment in some of the professional football clubs that have run the projects.

A report published last year by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation and New Philanthropy Capital, entitled “Teenage Kicks”, looked at a project run with Arsenal football club in Elthorne park in London and discovered that the investment in the project potentially created £7 of value for every £1 spent, with the savings coming from the reduced costs to the state of the reduction in criminal behaviour, with less police and court time needed to put people in detention. One participant said that he thought that 25% of the kids on the estate would be in jail without the programme, and he highlighted the nature of the problems that many young people face. He was someone who came home from school to find not a fridge full of food and people waiting for him, but nothing for him at all and an empty time in his day.

Interestingly, the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation also commissioned a report looking at the role of sport in gang culture. Young people involved in the research gave reasons why they might get involved in activities that would keep them out of trouble, and the top reason was that the activities would simply give them something to do. We should not underestimate the importance of that.

Returning to the study of the Elthorne park Kickz project delivered by Arsenal, it suggested that there had been a 66% reduction in youth crime within a one-mile radius of the project. Even taking into account other interventions—through community policing, for example —and after looking at national youth crime reduction trends for that period, the study’s authors thought it reasonable to suggest that at least 20% of that reduction was directly related to the project.

The Manchester United Foundation has delivered similar projects, with its star footballers working with youth workers and volunteers to deliver football-based recreational projects for young people in Manchester. Some of its research suggests a similar pattern of behaviour to that found in other research. It believes that in its Salford project there was a 28.4% reduction in antisocial behaviour during the session times when the foundation was working, and a 16.3% reduction in Trafford.

There are other smaller projects that in some ways work with people with more challenging needs, and I want to highlight—this has been highlighted in the Laureus report and by other people—the work of the Tottenham boxing academy. Members who know more about boxing than I do might take part in this debate, so I will not dwell too much on this. The project was designed for 14 to 16-year-olds. Physical impact sports—boxing and rugby—seem to be particularly effective when working with people from troubled backgrounds and certainly with those who have been involved criminal activity. There were 17 people on that project. Eight of them were known to have been offenders in the past, and based on normal intervention programmes, two thirds of those young people would normally be expected to reoffend within a year. However, in that instance, only two did. It is a small project, but it suggests that sporting projects help to re-engage people. They engage young people through a sport and then allow the youth workers delivering the project to engage with them about the other issues that they might have.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has spoken a bit about curing those who have committed youth crime. Does he accept that prevention is also an issue with youngsters who might otherwise be attracted into criminality?

May I make a quick plug for the club that is probably nearest to where we are sitting now? About 300 yards away is St Andrew’s club at Old Pye street. The club has been around for 130 years, runs 12 football teams on a weekly basis and has an indoor gym. It works well with Westminster school, which has put a lot of money into ensuring that the gym is up to the highest standards, and it makes an impact in the vicinity. St Andrew’s club operates not too far away from what would otherwise be a quite troubled area of social housing.

[Damian Collins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. St Andrew’s club is indeed a great success. I know that it has his support as well as that of previous lord mayors of Westminster, who have made it their annual mayoral charity. Its work is greatly appreciated by people in central London.

The project Hitz is delivered by the Rugby Football Union, the premiership rugby clubs and the police across 10 London boroughs, and has 750 participants. Again, the sessions are led by youth workers and run frequently, twice a week for 50 weeks of the year. In the Haggerston park area of Hackney, where the project was delivered, the fall in antisocial behaviour calls was calculated at 39% during the project.

Such projects often encourage people not just to take part in the project itself, but to take their interest into a more structured environment and perhaps into full-time participation in the sport. The Hackney Bulls rugby club recruited six new players from people involved in Hitz, and overall, the programme has taken 41 young people into full-time participation in rugby.

In my area, Kent, the Charlton Athletic Community Trust has done excellent work with young people over a number of years. Certain projects that have sought to re-engage young people and refocus their lives have caused similar falls in antisocial behaviour, including a fall of 35% in Aylesham and 59% in Buckland. The trust also does good work on alternative curriculum provision to re-engage young people with their studies, and I will come to that in a moment.

Good work can be done in the community to help direct young people away from the path of criminality, as my hon. Friend highlighted. There is also some evidence on work being done to engage young people in the prison environment, often at low cost, as many prisons and young offender institutions have good sporting facilities, and it is a question of bringing in the right people to engage young offenders. Those programmes use sport to help bridge the gap between life inside an institution to life outside it afterwards.

A project called 2nd Chance has worked in the Ashfield young offenders institution. Drawing on professional sports clubs around Bristol, such as Bristol Rovers and Bristol rugby club, it has worked with 400 offenders a year and is a low-cost provision. It has been calculated that, if just one offender with whom the programme works is kept out of prison, that will pay for the delivery of the entire programme for a year. When we consider that the current reoffending rate for young offenders in Ashfield is 76%, it seems a risk worth taking.

As part of the study of its work, 2nd Chance has asked that it and groups like it have access to information about reoffending rates for people who have engaged in such programmes, to demonstrate whether they offer a value for money return. At the moment, it is difficult for those groups to access that information, as all sorts of data protection issues rightly surround information that can be traced to individual offenders. However, could general information be given to make that link and demonstrate the payback of such projects? The project within Ashfield was delivered for less than £80,000 in a year of operation and worked with more than 400 young people.

The Rugby Football Union has a programme called Try for Life that has worked with young offenders in numerous institutions, and a programme called Prison to Pitch that trains young people in prison to play rugby and then helps them gain placements with rugby clubs outside prison. As with the programmes run by the Premier League, individuals who do not go on to work within the sport go on to volunteer to help deliver programmes for other young people.

School attendance and attainment is particularly relevant to a case from my own constituency that I want to cite: the work of the Charlton Athletic Community Trust in New Romney. It is worth noting in the data from the riots that 30% of rioters were persistently absent from school. In New Romney, the Charlton Athletic Community Trust has taken over alternative curriculum provision, a mainstream piece of provision offered across the country. Charlton Athletic won the contract to deliver it. It uses its role as a football and sport club to re-engage young people, but it also delivers studies in maths and English, as well as a broader basic curriculum.

The project opened in New Romney in September. I attended, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics. During the two or three months since it started, the rate of attendance of the young people involved has improved significantly. The project gave me statistics. The attendance rate of one of those young people went from 1% at their previous institution to 55% now. Another student’s attendance rate went from 26% at their previous institution to 100% now.

Such projects help to reduce antisocial behaviour, as some statistics demonstrate, and a broader, fuller study by the Government would be welcome. I have cited examples showing how they can intervene successfully in the lives of young people in prison and re-engage those who have had trouble at school with their studies. There is also much to be said about the projects’ ability to help rebuild young people’s sense of self-worth and make them feel happier in their working and school environments.

The charity Greenhouse does a lot of work across London. It was supported by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their wedding guest list and by The Times’s Christmas appeal. In the research based on its 41 full-time sports and performing arts projects across London, some things that stand out strongly are improved school attendance, improved timeliness for the projects and increased happiness in school. An evaluation commissioned by Greenhouse from external valuers showed that 87% of the young people with whom the charity worked reported being happy at school as a result of the new programmes in which they were taking part, compared with just 52% before the start of the programme. Those might be softer measures of improvement, but they are important when we consider that we are dealing with people who are, on the whole, quite disengaged from their environment and from formal learning areas and practices.

The Manchester United Foundation calculated that its project had worked with 500 young people. Of those 500, seven got jobs with Manchester United, 14 were recruited as volunteers, 30 gained accreditation in music and IT production projects, eight completed football level 1 and 2 qualifications, 12 won boxing tutor awards and 30 became junior football organisers. That is not a bad rate of return for engagement with 500 young people, and the project was delivered at relatively low cost, for less than £50,000 a year.

In conclusion, I ask the Government to consider the issues raised by my remarks and the case studies that I have mentioned. The Government should shift their priorities generally—they have already signalled a shift—so that they do not just increase participation in sport for good but consider how targeted intervention by sporting projects can help change the lives of some of the most hard-to-reach young people. They should consider how to create a unified approach to delivery across Departments. The work touches on the role of the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government, all of which have some interest in the delivery of such projects. A unified approach is needed, probably with a lead Minister to take responsibility for and an interest in how those projects are delivered.

There should be a review of some of the rules and regulations about the delivery of sporting projects on the ground. Many sporting clubs cite problems with Criminal Records Bureau checks and other forms of bureaucracy that make their work more difficult. We should certainly look at that. All the national sporting bodies should prioritise the development of coaching qualifications and the training of people to help deliver projects.

To return to what I said at the beginning of the debate, a good starting point would be to build on the work that is being done by many sporting and charitable organisations, take up the research that they have done, complete a fuller study and analysis of the benefits and the rate of return from this type of intervention, and then consider the potential basis of further Government support via Government agencies, local government and the police—through crime prevention strategies—to make this a fuller programme for the country. The need to re-engage with young people is strong and evident, and the riots over the summer demonstrated that clearly to us all. Through the fog of this despair, there is evidence of some incredible and successful interventions that are turning around the lives of young people. We should draw from that and build for the future.

Gangs

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a young person lives on the 15th floor of a tower block on one of my local estates, an after-school club is vital for their mother in seeking employment—if she is tempted to seek employment, who will take care of her child when school finishes? A breakfast club is essential if she has a cleaning job and Dad drives a minicab. In those circumstances, the young person getting to school early and getting a good breakfast is not an add-on; it is essential, but it is not clear that that is happening.

Let us examine the figures. Last year, knife crime rose by 8% in London. In addition, 43% of 11 to 13-year-olds and 50% of 14 to 16-year-olds said that knife crime and street violence were their No. 1 issue. Against that backdrop, we needed a youth offending service. We needed people to get to these young people early and work with them on intervention, prevention and persuasion. The service was developing, not mature, and was, in a sense, fairly new. I am alarmed that in the London borough of Haringey the budget has been cut by 50%.

In addition, some essential co-ordinated activity is not going on in a statutory way. Members of the voluntary sector often get together and debate these things, but it is not clear that there is any statutory obligation at all for the various services to be sat around a table, co-ordinating activities, profiling these young people and sharing intelligence.

Beyond the local authority, the activity that I have described is not happening London-wide. The border between Haringey and Hackney is porous, and the border between Haringey and Waltham Forest is porous. I am talking about co-ordinating intelligence. What is happening with these families? Which older brother went to prison last week? Which father found himself in trouble? Did domestic violence take place last week? It is essential that the various professionals have the ability to talk to one another and therefore know what is happening and or can predict what will happen, but that is not happening across London.

The Minister needs to examine that issue and needs to press the Mayor of London on it. There has been a lot of rhetoric and talk, but not a lot of action. The Mayor ran for office and won the election on the basis that he would reduce knife crime, so all of us must be very concerned that that is not happening. If anything, the problem has accelerated and got worse. Co-ordinated activity is essential. I am not saying that all this can be driven from the top, but it is possible to press for best practice, understand what is happening and see different professionals speaking to one another about those families and young people. That is not happening across London; it needs to happen, and much more purposefully. I hope that the Minister will say something about the youth offending services and teams that have been cut, and about what co-ordinated activity is planned across and beyond boroughs London-wide.

It is also clear to me that we are not sharing best practice and intelligence across the country, because I have been to other cities that are beginning to struggle with gang crime in their communities and they feel behind the curve in relation to some of the things that we have become familiar with in London.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is important to put it on the record that there have been improvements in some statistics for some areas of serious crime, whether knife crime or gun crime, in recent years, although I accept that there is a tendency now to move in the wrong direction. We all know that just to bandy around statistics is not a sensible route forward. I very much take on board the idea that there needs to be far more co-ordination within London. The right hon. Gentleman referred to his own local authority perhaps being behind the curve compared with the neighbouring authority of Waltham Forest, which has put in place the Connect programme. It is important that, rather than getting into a sterile debate on statistics, which I accept happens on all sides in political discourse in London, we acknowledge that the Mayor and his predecessor have recognised the importance of dealing with gang crime and, in particular, the terrible statistics for knife and gun crime. Whether there is a slight reduction or not, any deaths that take place because of knife or gun crime are terrible tragedies, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point I am making is that, two years ago, the assistant borough commander, the head of the youth service and her representatives, and representatives of social services, health services and schools were sat around the table—routinely, every month—discussing the group of young people who were getting caught up in this situation, and that funds were coming through to support that activity. I am afraid that they told me last week that that has ended. They are engaged—meeting voluntarily, every six weeks—because they are so concerned, but there is no statutory framework for that activity, and neither is there the support and diversion activity that needs to happen.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from his long experience that what those young people need is diversionary activity and intervention. That requires resources. If he speaks to colleagues in Waltham Forest—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow might say something about this—he will hear that they are concerned about resources. I think that this is one area in which we can make the plea for resources, because the consequences of under-resourcing will cost us so much more. The co-ordination and resources that must rightly follow, so that those professionals can do their job, are essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on his speech. I will try to be brief. He is right to identify that the riots were, in essence, an example of opportunistic, rather than systematic, gang-related criminality. None the less, it is important that we discuss gangs, not least because we will have an opportunity in 48 hours to discuss, in this same Chamber, the riots in greater detail.

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. None of the issues is open to a simplistic analysis or easy solution. It is perhaps the nature of the 24/7 media world in which we live that that expectation always exists. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, there was a sense that we should have some quick and easy solutions, but I think that the lesson is that, much as I accept his call to arms and passionate push for urgency, we also have to be patient. This needs systematic work within our communities to try to make sure that we break down the culture of violence and criminality, as well as the entirety of gang culture.

I am very much a sound money man. I have been a great believer in getting our deficit down and have tried in my own constituency, almost uniformly, not to make the case for more money to be pushed in a particular direction. I am, however, aware of gang culture in my own constituency and in the past few days I have written to the Home Secretary to make the case for moneys that would otherwise be taken away from Westminster city council to be put in its direction. There is a bigger issue of gang culture in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). The terrible shooting that took place on the Mozart estate only a week ago was a classic example of that.

In my constituency, the Churchill Gardens estate is not too far from where we sit this morning and there is increasingly great concern that it has almost a critical mass of would-be gang culture that has the potential to cause great blight to the locality. A lot of it is driven by the postcode war, with gangs from north and south of the river—the Churchill Gardens estate looks out towards Battersea and the south of London. There is real concern that we need to put some resource into prevention rather than cure.

I accept what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said earlier. One of the greatest difficulties is that the lifestyle has almost become chaotic and that it is difficult to wean people off. I also noticed that she raised her eyebrows when the right hon. Member for Tottenham suggested that gang culture was not an issue in 2000 when he became an MP. It has been a problem, although I think that there is now a critical mass in parts of London that used to feel unaffected by it. One of the interesting things about the riots was how previously quiet suburbs, such as Clapham and Enfield, which were perhaps regarded as leafy suburbs not too far away from some of the gangland areas of south London, Edmonton or Walthamstow, suddenly became subject to some real problems. That is something that we have to bear firmly in mind.

As I have said, this will require patient, time-consuming activity. The St Andrew’s club, of which I am proud, as the local Member of Parliament, to be president, is even closer to us than the Churchill Gardens estate; it is within 500 yards of Parliament. It was the oldest boys’ club and is now a boys and girls’ club. A phenomenal amount of resource was put in to ensure that there were sports clubs and teams. There are also opportunities for dance and music lessons.

The club desperately requires funding. The local authority is not able to give it the funds it has had in recent years. We have tried to build up a trust, so that relatively wealthy people living nearby are able to put in money. It is helpful—not so much in keeping people off the streets, although that is one distinct element of it—and its catchment area goes well beyond the immediate vicinity of Westminster. The clubs that it puts in place go south of the river.

That opportunity for distraction, provided by clubs in particular, is, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, something that we middle-class parents can often provide for our children almost as a matter of course, without recognising that for many others costs and more general factors make the opportunity much more limited. I hope that in such areas we can try to wean people off gang culture, although it is extremely difficult. Even if there were a direct economic choice between a job and the attraction of cheap and easy money, compatible with a chaotic lifestyle, it would be difficult to wean many long-standing gang members away. Aspiration is an issue: paucity of aspiration and of expectation.

I want to finish with one other observation. I do not want to play down the importance of the issues. I have a feeling that, although we have not had to worry about gang culture in my constituency, we may go beyond the critical mass in a year or two, if we do not nip things in the bud today. However, we must also recognise there are many unsung, relatively quiet young men and women in our communities, doing a phenomenally good job. They work hard and have developed aspirations. Perhaps it is self-discipline that has brought that about, rather than anything from their family. They are unsung heroes and I hope that they will play their part in improving their communities in years to come. It is important that we should not look on young people as simply problematic. We can be proud of them, while we do our level best to tackle the problems addressed in the debate.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on opening the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on initiating it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) would also like to take part, but she cannot be here today.

Lewisham is by and large a safe place to live. People generally get on with one another. Children play in our parks, and I shall walk home from the station tonight without fear. I mention that because my experience of Lewisham is probably different from that of some of my younger constituents, who have seen the lives of friends and family devastated by serious youth violence. My perception of Lewisham is probably different from that of local parents who are worried about the safety of their children. In the past four years, there have been 67 incidents of known gang-related crime in the borough, four of which resulted in someone dying. In the same period, there were 673 instances of gun and knife crime, and 17 people were killed. I do not quote those figures to sensationalise; I do it so that everyone will be clear about the scale of the problem.

In the past few months, since the riots, gangs seem to be back on the Government’s agenda. Whether the subject is a cross-departmental taskforce to look at ways to deal with gang culture, or extensions to gang injunctions, Ministers want to talk about gangs. It is all very well to be interested in gangs now, but with the exception of Brooke Kinsella’s report last year and the announcement in February of some ring-fenced funding to tackle gang, gun and knife crime, the Government have been dangerously slow off the mark in addressing the challenges posed by gangs and gang violence.

Last September, in an Opposition-day debate, I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to look at ways of tackling material that appears on the internet glorifying gang membership and the carrying of knives. Video after video, filmed in a car park in Catford in the heart of my constituency, is put on YouTube. They are often viewed as many as 16,000 times. Young men, or perhaps I should say boys, brandish knives in front of the camera as if they were cigarettes. I wrote to the Minister two days after the debate, providing him with an example of the footage and asking what action the Home Office would take. In November I wrote again, chasing a reply. In January I spoke to him after he appeared before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, but to date I have not had any response to my inquiries; so when the Government talk tough on gangs and want to find someone and something to blame for the riots, I cannot help but wonder why they did not do more to address the sort of problems that many of us were bringing to their attention long before the riots.

If I am honest, I do not know what the Government can do to tackle the problem of online material such as the videos that I have described, but I fear that, if thousands of young people have viewed that footage and think that it is in some way cool, it would not be at all surprising if some of them also got caught up in thinking that some of the agitators in the riots were pretty cool, too.

[Mr Mark Field]

The hon. Lady complains that the Government and perhaps the current Mayor of London have not produced the goods, as she would have liked, but it is only fair to mention that, in the past few years, 10,000 knives and guns have been taken off the street, in a widespread amnesty, and we have also ensured that there are an additional 1 million police patrols per year on the streets of London. It is also fair to say that that builds on what happened under Mayor Livingstone, but the trajectory has been in that direction: we have continued some of the important work done in our capital city in the past decade.

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech that in recent years there has also been an upward trajectory. He urged patience, and I am not sure that patience is possible in this situation, because young people are being killed and maimed on our streets. We need to tackle the situation urgently.

I have spoken about my frustration in trying to get the Government to examine the big issues, and I urge the Minister to update us on the conversations that he has had with companies such as YouTube about how, when the police know such videos are out there, they may perhaps be enabled to get that material taken down.

Having spoken about online manifestations of gangs, I want to turn to some of the wider action that is needed if we are to deal with a problem that blights the lives of too many young people in big cities. Yesterday, I visited XLP, a youth work charity based in my constituency. Its founder, Patrick Regan, is the author of “Fighting Chance: Tackling Britain’s Gang Culture”. I urge the Minister and all hon. Members who are present to read it. It is a powerful and enlightening contribution to the debate about why young people are involved in gangs, what solutions are needed and, indeed, what solutions work. Anyone who reads the book will realise that there is no magic wand to be waved to tackle the problem of gang violence. What is clear is the fact that any gang strategy must address all aspects of the problem. We must seek to understand the reasons behind gang involvement and, equally, why most kids do not get involved. Let us be clear: the vast majority of kids, even on some of the most challenging estates, are not involved.

To put it simply, if we are to tackle the problem of gangs, we must find a way to get those who are now in gangs out of them; we need to help those who are in prison as a result of being in gangs not to return to gangs when they come out; and we must help those who are caught up in gang violence to deal with their anger in different ways. Often, retaliation and reprisals lead to an escalation of violence. How do we stop things getting worse at that stage? Most importantly, we must prevent people from getting involved in the first place.

What should we do? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is completely right to talk about jobs. I have said before that young people in my constituency stop me in the street and say, “What are you going to do to help me get a job?” If young people do not have real opportunities, we will not reach a situation where they do not see involvement in gangs as the easy, quick-win solution. However, we need to do other things, such as getting youth-led projects into schools when young people are at the right age, so we can make it clear to them that, if they carry a knife, it could end up injuring them. We need to provide young people with accessible role models, who are in it for the long haul, giving the support and encouragement that may be missing in other parts of a young person’s life. We need to ensure that the one-to-one mentoring and encouragement that a young person in a pupil referral unit might need are available, and can be funded. We need to give confidential support to young people who present themselves at an A and E department with a stab wound, so that they can find a way out of some of the problems. As I have said before, we need to work with those who are in prison to give them a fulfilling life to get away from gangs on their release.

When I spoke to staff at XLP yesterday, I asked them what the Government should do to tackle the problem of gangs. They were clear in their response: jobs, a better balance between enforcement and engagement, and funding of initiatives that have been proven to work. XLP gets £10,000 a year from the Home Office. It has a track record in delivery, going into schools and doing the things that I have talked about. It is changing young people’s lives; it is probably saving their lives.

I say this to the Government: take the millions of pounds that they plan to spend on police and crime commissioners and invest the money in community-led projects that are already tackling gang and knife crime. Young lives are being lost in some of our big cities because of the violence associated with gangs. That has to stop. Talking tough is not going to solve the problem. A proper, thought-out and credible strategy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, might give us a fighting chance of tackling some of the problems, and I implore the Minister to set out what the Government are going to do.

Police (Public Trust)

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. Sir Robert Peel, the founder of policing, said:

“The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

His comments were true in the 19th century and they are true today. Policing remains a noble vocation. For many serving police officers, their duties remain much more than a job or profession. At its very best, the police service still manifests the highest of public service attributes; it is public service in uniform. I pay tribute to the 11 police officers who have been killed on duty since 2002 and the 3,271 police officers who have been seriously injured over that same period, and, indeed, to officers on the front line today who are perhaps being injured in the course of their duties.

Like most Members of this House, I was brought up to respect the police, and for the most part that respect still remains, but in recent years I have become aware—not only from the mailbag and inbox from my own constituency, but from the experience of those whom I read and hear about in different parts of the country—that public trust in the police is declining. It is indisputable that a sizable minority of officers are increasingly overshadowing the dedication, courage and professionalism of the vast majority of serving police officers—officers who do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not in this debate set out to criticise the police, but, as a candid observer and supporter of those who do their duty, I want to raise a number of serious concerns that I have about some aspects of modern policing, which, in my humble view, unless the police address them, will continue to undermine much needed public confidence and encourage the growing lack of trust in those to whom we entrust so much.

I understand that the police need and want a good working relationship with the media. The success of broadcast programmes such as “Crimewatch” underscore such a relationship working well, and the same is true in relation to the press. The police and the media working well together—working lawfully together—can and does bring results, which are welcomed by the law-abiding public. However, what is not acceptable to the public is when serving police officers sell their stories, whether true or untrue—stories often obtained by officers in the course of their official policing duties. In such instances, disciplinary action needs to be far more severe than it is on the disappointingly rare occasions that such action occurs now. If officers breach internal disciplinary codes over relationships with the media, what other laws and rules might they be breaking? If they break the law, action should be taken.

Police officers also need to be reminded, under caution if necessary, of their legal obligations to uphold the Official Secrets Act. Police officers are not above the law; they are subject to the law and they must uphold the law. Moreover, when senior officers fail to take action against officers who fail to uphold the law, public trust ebbs away. This personal feasting on the media can bring the whole of the police service into disrepute. That lesson applies to senior officers too. They should try to avoid losing their sense of perspective in exchange for a few moments of glory in newspapers, which are decreasingly read. It would be far better for the police to stick to policing.

It is also not for senior and chief officers to decide what is and what is not in the public interest, or what they will or will not investigate. The law is set by this Parliament, by the people and for the people, not around a large and strategic coffee table. That is why the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must avoid any hint that it is the police, rather than the Crown Prosecution Service, who ultimately decide what cases may or may not be investigated and brought before the courts. That is why I am calling today for a review of what is and what is not “in the public interest”. What does the term “in the public interest” actually mean? Who really determines what is in the public interest, using what criteria?

One of the key areas of concern for many of my constituents and, indeed, for many serving police officers I speak to is the apparent lack of discipline exercised in and by some police forces. It is not acceptable to taxpayers or to dedicated and hard-working police officers for other police officers to break the rules—sometimes consistently—many of whom are subject to no discipline or, if they are disciplined, are only very lightly disciplined. It is the view of those of my constituents with whom I have spoken about this issue that far too many bad apples remain in the police service, often with impunity. For every officer who “gets away with it”—whatever “it” might be—public trust in the police ebbs away.

Indeed, the culture of the police service offering a job for life, or for 30 years, even to officers who have a very poor disciplinary record and years of complaints against them, must end. Honest, hard-working police officers deserve better and so do the public. As one police officer put it to me recently,

“from the junior ranks to chief officer level, there needs to be a 21st century reminder that it is not a ‘warrant card’ that gives the police service its success, but public trust, public co-operation and policing by consent.”

I welcome the Government’s review into policing pay, terms of employment and conditions, but I hope that that review will also look at that important area of discipline and especially at the public demand for chief officers to approach their disciplinary responsibilities far more proactively. That will mean far more than the call to limit payouts at employment tribunals; often, it will mean enforcing warnings and disciplines at a very early stage in a police officer’s career—early intervention. A problem ignored today will often emerge as a more costly and complex problem tomorrow. Chief officers have the rank and the pay to deal with important man-management decisions, and they need to show a little more forthrightness in doing so.

Corrupt police officers should be brought before the courts, and on conviction thrown out of the force. Being dismissed from a particular force does not serve justice in the way that the public rightly expect and deserve. Furthermore, when I say “courts”, I mean local courts. It is not acceptable that officers are brought before courts in a neighbouring county to the one in which they serve. I am sure that it has nothing to do with avoiding potentially negative media and public scrutiny, but whatever the reasons or causes for the practice, it must end. There should be no special treatment for police officers.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his very interesting speech and I agree with the thrust of quite a bit of what he has said. As a London MP, I think that the mendacity of the Metropolitan police at times in relation to some high-profile events, such as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and indeed even Mark Saunders very recently, is very worrying, particularly as it seems to be a mendacity that is implied at the very highest level.

My hon. Friend made a very important point early in his contribution about policing by consent. Does he have a view on that issue? Policing by consent is a very particular element of policing in this country, which makes us very different from many European countries. Does he not think that now is the time for a much more open and much broader debate about precisely how our policing should be organised? Historically, going back 160 or 170 years, it has very much been a case of policing by consent rather than policing on a European-type model, but perhaps the model of policing and the expectations of the general public are now changing.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I know that he has a lot of experience in this area. In response to his question, I think it is important that when the Government undertake their review, the whole issue of the relationship and building trust between the police and the public is examined. I have touched on discipline already; I will touch on some other issues shortly. I think that my hon. Friend came in just a few moments after I began the debate. I refer him to the words of Sir Robert Peel that I quoted at the outset; perhaps he can read them in Hansard. It is an important point that, of course, the police are themselves members of the public. However, on the question of policing by consent, perhaps we need to look at Bramshill, Hendon and other places where our police officers—from junior officers to senior officers—are trained. We should remind officers that they are policing by consent and that there must be a relationship with the public that does not exist through the warrant card alone but through trust and mutual respect.

As I said, there should be no special treatment for police officers. Police officers are not above the law; they are subject to the law, as we all are. Some officers forget that and as a result public trust in the police ebbs away. [Interruption.]