Illegal Immigration

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. Given the length of the opening speech, and the amount of time available, I will try to limit each Member to about five minutes, with the exception of the two Front Benchers. I call Fred Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

I have worked for the National Crime Agency in the past, and also in a counter-terror role. There are ways we can deal with this. The fact is that what the previous Government set up only dealt with the processing of those who arrived. The new border security command can bring in not just enforcement but disruption, which will ensure that people are not even getting on to the boats. There is not just one way of cracking this nut. If we bring in the likes of MI5, with new counter-terror powers, tools and a culture of disruption, then it can have a massive impact. I have been part of that in the past and have seen it happen, so it can work and I have full faith—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask for interventions to be quite short. Those who are intervening are subtracting time from those who want to speak later in the debate.

[Fred Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) for his intervention and his fantastic service to the nation. He worked in those organisations that keep us safe, and is not just commenting from the side.

The inheritance from the previous Government was dire. When Labour took office it was against the backdrop of record small-boat crossing numbers. The last number I saw for this year so far was 13,489; that is an astonishing number that represents a total loss of control. Of course we are not going to turn that around within nine weeks of being in office. Let us not forget the situation that we are inheriting.

Net migration has trebled since 2019. Meanwhile, the Rwanda scheme, which we have heard about today, has already cost taxpayers more than £700 million; we have sent four volunteers to Kigali—that is an expensive trip. Had the Conservatives returned to power, they intended to spend £10 billion over six years on the same failed policy. Will the Minister assure my neighbours, the people I represent and the armed forces community in Plymouth, that the situation is going to turn around under the new Labour Government?

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for securing this important debate. It is a shame that there are not more Members here today.

I will choose my words very carefully in this debate, because words and language are important. We need to get tough in this place about the problem of illegal migration. I hear time and again that these people are fleeing war-torn countries—they are desperate people fleeing persecution. Well, let me say, I have been to France and it is quite a nice place. There is no war in France and they are not persecuted there. I served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years. I went to the camps in Calais, and the first thing we noticed was that it was all young men—there were no women, children or families. They were young men between the ages of 16 or 17 and 30. They all said the same thing to us: they would point at the white cliffs of Dover and say, “El Dorado”. They wanted to come to this country because they thought that the streets were paved with gold—and they are paved with gold, if someone is coming from a country such as Eritrea or Sudan.

The most annoying part for me was that there was a charity there called Care4Calais, which would attract those people. It would give them the co-ordinates in whichever country they came from, and it would take weeks or months for people to get there. Once they got to the camp, Care4Calais would set up a school to teach them how to speak and write English. It would give them new phones with data, give them shelter, and get them ready for the crossing to the UK. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, who said that once they get to England they are never leaving—it is once they get in the channel. Once they get in the channel they are picked up and ferried to our country. When they get to our country, they are placed in hotels—[Interruption.]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division. We normally add injury time to debates such as this. As soon as everybody is back in the Chamber, I will be in the Chair and any time we have lost as a result of the vote will be recouped.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

With injury time, the debate will now continue to 4.15 pm. I call Lee Anderson to continue.

[Lee Anderson]

Thank you, Sir Mark.

Once the illegal migrants—let us get the wording right: they are illegal migrants—get into this country, there is no way they are ever going to be deported. It only happens in very rare circumstances.

The most important thing for me is to get the terminology right. They are illegal migrants. They are young men coming into our country. Quite frankly—people can say what they want about me—I do not want these people in my country. They have broken into our country. They have thrown their documents away. They are undocumented. We do not know where they have come from. We do not know what they have been up to in their own country. We do not know whether they are criminals. We do not know what their intentions are when they get here.

We are a soft touch. These are illegal migrants posing as asylum seekers. We have heard some horrific cases over the past two years, with some of these illegal migrants being granted asylum status and then going on to commit horrific crimes—again, abusing our asylum system.

I get reports as a Member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues do, of young, undocumented men roaming around our town centres, intimidating people. That has to stop. Yet we see the non-governmental organisations, the lefty lawyers and the Labour party together encouraging these illegal migrants to come over the channel by using the same old slogan: “smash the gangs”. I am telling everyone in this room that that slogan is a complete nonsense. We have to stop the pull factor for people coming to this country.

Once these young men in northern France—I have to been to the camps—get into the channel, they are in this country. We may stop 100 boats a month, but those same people will get on to another boat and keep coming. Once they are in this country, they are going absolutely nowhere, and they are costing us a fortune. At the same time as we are waiting for the results of a vote to rob our pensioners of their winter fuel payment, supported by the Government, we are spending nearly £6 billion or £7 billion on illegal migration.

In the minute I have left, I will tell a quick story. In 1941, my grandad Charles William Waterfield left the Nottinghamshire coalfields. He left the pits before mining became a reserved occupation. He put a uniform on and went to north Africa. He left a wife and two children behind to fight for King and country. He did that. He did not run away. He did not go to another country and leave his wife and children behind, which is exactly what these young men are doing. They are leaving women and children behind in a supposedly war-torn country. Quite frankly, I do not want these sorts of people in my country and neither do the vast majority of the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

I apologise for my late arrival after the vote, Sir Mark. My constituency is Dover and Deal, so I have been engaging on this serious issue for a number of years and it means a lot to my constituents. The Labour party has made it clear that what matters to voters matters to us, too, and that is why we are taking this so seriously.

In 2018, 299 people crossed in small boats. Since then, we have had 136,000 crossings. The asylum backlog reached record highs, which has cost £8 million a day in hotels. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) made the point that we will speed up the processing and therefore grant more asylum claims, but the alternative is to have a backlog of five years that costs £8 million a day. We will also deport those who should not be here, which the Conservatives completely failed to do.

Our plan is sensible and pragmatic. The border security command, as I touched on earlier, is not the same as what was previously in place to deal with those arriving at the borders. It will work upstream and bring in counter-terror powers. Let us give that a chance—we have had eight weeks, so I am surprised even to be having this debate right now. We have had 13 flights off the ground, one of which was the largest on record. That is a show of intent as to exactly how seriously we take the matter.

My final point is that the Labour party has strong values on this. We believe in secure borders, but we play the ball, not the player. Those seeking a better life are doing nothing wrong, but we will secure the borders and take out the smuggling gangs.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

The number of Members wishing to speak has dwindled slightly since the Division, so I will relax the time limit from five to six minutes to more like seven to eight minutes. Members will have a bit longer. I know that does not help those who have already spoken, but they spoke before the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

Are you aware of the fact that they were steel-hulled vessels—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say that if somebody intervenes, you should sit down?

[Mike Tapp]

If we attempt to do the same, we are likely to kill people in our waters. Is that what you want to see?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we move on to the Front-Bench contributions, may I remind some of the newer Members, who have been saying “you” or referring to other Members by name, that the convention is to refer either to the office that a Member holds, such as Prime Minister, or to the seat that they represent?

Cyber-security

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cyber security laws and tackling crime.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am delighted to lead this debate on the important issue of cyber-security, particularly in relation to cyber-crime and the need to enhance the UK’s national cyber-resilience.

Cyber-security has a significant impact on society, the economy and individuals, as well as on both national and global security. The UK faces cyber-threats from a number of hostile actors, whether they are states, state-sponsored groups or criminal organisations motivated by money. Cyber-crime itself ranges from complex ransomware attacks to less sophisticated cyber-threats such as hacking and phishing, which many in their everyday lives. In today’s world, virtually every business, charity and public sector organisation is in some way digital, but, as high-profile incidents have shown, cyber-attacks exploiting that digitalisation can quickly undermine trust in our private and public sector institutions.

With a burgeoning cyber ecosystem, the UK is well placed to be a global leader on cyber-security, and I will come back to that point later. Often, however, we struggle to get the basics right, leaving citizens and businesses exposed as they move more and more of their lives and operations online. Last year, UK businesses experienced approximately 7.78 million cyber-crimes. Half of businesses and around a third of charities report having experienced some form of cyber-breach or attack in the last 12 months and such attacks have had a real impact on business and consumers.

A recent report by the think-tank the Royal United Services Institute brought to light some of the stark implications of cyber-crime, particularly in relation to ransomware, which is malware designed to deny a user or organisation access to their own data unless a ransom is paid to the attacker. RUSI’s report revealed the extent to which ransomware can ruin lives, with the harm going beyond financial and reputational costs for organisations. Victims and incident responders have revealed that ransomware creates both physical and psychological harms for individuals and groups, which have caused individuals to lose their jobs, evoked feelings of shame and self-blame, seeped into private and family life and contributed to serious health issues. Furthermore:

“The harm and cumulative effects caused by ransomware attacks have implications for wider society and national security, including supply chain disruption, a loss of trust in law enforcement, reduced faith in public services, and the normalisation of cybercrime. Ransomware also creates a strategic advantage for the hostile states harbouring the cyber-criminals who conduct such operations.”

Meanwhile, the threat landscape is changing and becoming more complex.

UK cyber firm NCC Group’s latest insights show that ransomware attacks increased by 84% last year, with the UK the second most targeted country for such attacks, only behind the US. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence have the potential to enable cyber-attackers to mount ever more sophisticated campaigns against organisations. AI is effectively lowering the barrier of entry into cyber-crime, making it easier for cyber-attackers to successfully target victims and widening the availability of voice cloning, deepfakes and social engineering bots. We are likely to see that manifest in a higher volume of cyber-attacks, an enhanced ability of cyber-criminals to generate malware and an improved success rate of social engineering and phishing attacks. With AI as an emerging threat, hacking as a service is being thought of as a growing market, whereby malware developers sell or lease cyber-attack tools and services to other cyber-criminals. Worryingly, such a business model extends cyber-attack capabilities to organisations and individuals that would not otherwise have known how to carry out attacks themselves.

Artificial intelligence is also advancing tactics that have been around for decades and, in its own way, evolving threats in line with technology. Deepfake phishing is just one example of a fast-growing threat that manipulates or confuses users in order to exploit their trust and gain access to their data. That can be done through emails or messages, video calls or voice messages, where personalisation and synthetic content can make the attack more credible.

Cyber-threats should be seen in the wider context of nation-state threats, too. The conflict in Ukraine has shown how cyber and kinetic attacks are increasingly interconnected in modern hybrid warfare. As thousands of lines of complex code control new and evolving physical functions and systems, such as in smart cities, cyber-security vulnerabilities can be exploited to effect change in the real world. Although we have not seen the so-called cybergeddon that some were expecting from the next big conflict on our globe, one thing is clear: cyber-warfare has proven itself to be a critical element in hybrid cyber-kinetic battlefields.

There is an opportunity here for the UK. To tackle cyber-crime, a close partnership between the public and private sectors is a critical part of the UK’s whole-society approach. In particular, the UK’s cyber industry is working closely with law enforcement, the public sector, academia and other private firms to ensure that the UK remains confident, capable and resilient in this fast-moving digital world. That includes vulnerability researchers, also known as ethical hackers, who identify security vulnerabilities in products, software and the UK Government. They rely on such researchers to identify bugs before they can be exploited by malicious actors for their nefarious purposes.

Meanwhile, threat intelligence researchers detect cyber-attacks and gain insight into attackers and victims. Researchers work with and pass on that important information to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies, enabling them to defend the UK against rising cyber-crime and geopolitical threat actors. Many of the recent takedown operations we have heard about, where law enforcement disrupted the servers or digital infrastructure that cyber-criminals used to conduct their illegal activities, were possible only because intelligence and insights about those cyber-criminals were shared across the public and private sectors. I firmly believe that there is an opportunity for the UK to play a significant leadership role in conducting the UK’s response, with the north-west cyber corridor at its heart.

We are already seeing that public-private partnership in action in wider Lancashire and in my own constituency of Preston through the National Cyber Force, which will open its new home in Samlesbury, Lancashire, in 2025. It is a partnership between defence and intelligence, and already carries out cyber operations daily to counter and contest the actions of those who would harm the UK or our allies, to keep the country safe and to protect and promote the UK’s interests at home and abroad. Furthermore, the Lancashire Cyber Partnership, or LCP, is a strategic collaboration between Lancashire County Council, the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, the University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire University and BAE Systems. In addition, the National Cyber Force has its own role in shaping, supporting and promoting the county’s world-class cyber strengths and fast-growing cyber ecosystem, becoming a destination for cyber businesses, investors, careers training, academia and, indeed, innovation. With a strong cyber industry, Lancashire and the wider north-west are fostering the growth of the technology, digital and defence sectors, as well as harnessing the investment, jobs and benefits that come with a thriving cyber economy.

We should be proud of the UK’s role as a responsible global cyber power, and we should also remember that there is widespread cross-party and cross-societal consensus on the importance of cyber-security as fundamental for thriving and prosperous digital societies and economies. However, we cannot be complacent. Research from the NCC Group has shown that citizens—our constituents—expect us, as political decision-makers, to do what we can to keep them safe and secure in cyber-space. We have strong foundations to build on, but we must continue to do more to take our cyber-security to the next level. Indeed, much more can be done to ensure that regional cyber clusters, such as the north-west, can play their part in making us all safer online, while also enhancing national cyber-resilience.

I would like to move on to the issue of the UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990. First and foremost, that Act, which is the main cyber-security Act that regulates the UK’s digital relationship between individuals and malicious parties, needs bringing into the 21st century. The Act was written more than 30 years ago when just over 0.5% of the world’s population had access to the internet, and before the cyber industry—as we know it today—even existed. As a result, the UK’s cyber-defenders, such as the vulnerability and threat intelligence researchers mentioned earlier, are held back by that outdated law from doing all they can to protect the UK. That is because the Act, which was written over 30 years ago, has a blanket prohibition on all forms of unauthorised access to computer material, irrespective of intent or motive. In this day and age, where an individual desktop PC is but a distant memory, where technologies are hyperconnected and where cyber-crime is rampant, that approach simply does not reflect the reality we live in. The legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and, worse, it might be detrimental.

There have been calls from industry, led by the CyberUp Campaign, to reform the law to include a defence for legitimate cyber-security work. Sir Patrick Vallance called for such a defence in the “The Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review”, and he recommended amending the 1990 Act to include a statutory public interest defence that would provide stronger legal protections for cyber-security researchers and professionals. That would have a catalytic effect on innovation in a sector with considerable growth potential. Countries such as France, Israel and the United States have already updated their regulations to provide that defence. I join Sir Patrick by agreeing that if the UK cyber industry is to compete on a level playing field, the UK Government should do the same. However, one year since Sir Patrick published his recommendation, and three years since the UK Government first launched their review into the Act, the Government are yet to set out how they will address the legal barriers that it presents to the UK cyber-security industry.

A second area where the Government must prioritise reform is in updating the network and information systems regulations, which set out the cyber rules for our critical infrastructure. Back in 2022, the Government announced their intention to legislate to enable new sectors to be brought within the scope of the NIS regulations, responding to the inevitable evolution of what constitutes the UK’s critical infrastructure, but those reforms were not included in the most recent King’s Speech. It is critical that there are no further delays in bringing forward the reforms, and that a Bill is prioritised. Failure to legislate would leave a core part of the UK’s critical infrastructure exposed when others globally are already moving forward with new laws to ensure that all relevant entities are appropriately and proportionately regulated.

Outside the UK’s critical infrastructure, we must look at how we protect small businesses and charities, the backbone of the UK’s economy. Despite six in 10 small businesses being victims of a cyber-attack last year, many lack the skills and budgets to implement proportionate cyber-protections, leaving them exposed. They can also be disproportionately affected, with cyber-attacks sometimes posing an existential threat. A survey found that 90% of European small and medium-sized enterprises believed that cyber-security issues would have serious negative impacts on their business within a week of the issues happening; 57% said that they would most likely become bankrupt or go out of business.

It is unrealistic to expect small firms to adhere to and invest in the same cyber-resilience standards as larger firms such as critical infrastructure firms. However, that leaves a significant part of the economy vulnerable to cyber-attacks. To tackle that problem, the Government should work with technology providers to embed cyber-security in their products, particularly those most relied on by small organisations. The Government should also look at how they can support smaller firms’ response to and recovery from cyber-attacks. That could include establishing a “first responder” service that provides proportionate—that is, free-at-the-point-of-use—support to small businesses that have been victims of cyber-attacks. That could include incident response services and the triaging of further steps, such as where victims could get the most effective help. Such a scheme could learn lessons from our counterparts in Australia, who recently announced a small business cyber-security resilience service.

Finally, the Government must look at how they enhance the UK’s cyber skills. The issue of cyber skills is not just about addressing the cyber industry’s significant skills shortage, although that is a critical part of it. It is also about equipping individuals—across organisations of all sizes and at all levels of seniority—with the cyber literacy that they need to make decisions about their personal, organisational and even national cyber-resilience. A national programme of cyber literacy is needed to ensure that everyone, from preschoolers right through to pensioners, is cyber-literate, no matter where they are on their learning, career or retirement journeys. That could include commissioning “Cyber Beebies”—keeping with the concept of CBeebies, which

“helps pre-schoolers learn whilst they play fun games, watch clips, sing songs and make things”—

in order to start cyber education and awareness in the earliest years.

We could also look at including cyber-competence—covering safe and secure online behaviours, privacy and use of technology alongside broader technology and computing lessons—as a mandatory part of the school curriculum. That should be reviewed and tested with an industry advisory board regularly to ensure that it keeps pace with technological developments and industry requirements. Teachers must also be regularly supported to understand new developments and how they should be reflected in the school curriculum.

STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—programmes throughout the country have had a critical role in creating opportunities for today’s youth as they advance their education and skillset. In my own constituency of Preston, I am very proud of the work of Cardinal Newman College. One of the highest-performing sixth form colleges nationally, it has partnered with Lancaster University to harness the skills of young people with a passion and aptitude for the study of maths and science. In doing so, they have further developed the young people’s interest and education while providing them with opportunities for their future, including—especially—in the field of cyber at the new cyber defence centre.

I welcome the Minister, who is about to take his place in the hall. I should like to ask him four questions. Will he join me in praising and expressing pride in our UK cyber industry? Will he acknowledge, as we all do, the role that our industry plays in keeping us all safe and secure in cyber-space? Will he set out the Government’s further ambitions to take our cyber-security to the next level and beyond what has been announced as part of the national cyber strategy? Will he provide more information in particular on the Government’s plans to finally make progress on introducing legal protections for legitimate cyber-security activities as part of ongoing efforts to reform the Computer Misuse Act? Will he set out the Government’s views on following the Australian example of introducing a cyber first responders service for all our small businesses and charities, and set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to invest in our national cyber-resilience?

I thank the Minister for engaging with me on this important issue. It is good that there is cross-party consensus on a matter of such importance, but it is clear that much more needs to be done when it comes to cyber-crime and ensuring that Government policy keeps pace with technology in the ever-changing cyber landscape. The public need to be better educated and trained from an early age in the use of computers. That will add to the resilience the country needs to overcome the challenges of cyber-crime for the purposes of cyber-security.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Before I call the SNP spokesperson, I want to note that the Minister was not in his place, which is disappointing given the importance of the issue and the effort put in by the Member in charge. We have been grateful to Minister Opperman for sitting in, who is fortified with the relevant information. I am sure he will let his colleague copy his homework, so he is able to respond, if the Member in charge is happy with that.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Yes.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

On that basis, we will proceed. I call SNP spokesperson Owen Thompson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

It is a great pleasure to see you this evening, Ms Bardell—as ever, the surprise only adds to the joy—and to respond to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), who is quite right to have secured this debate. The challenge that he talked about and the ways of addressing it are fundamental not just to his constituents and the National Cyber Force, which he rightly paid tribute to and will be hosting in his constituency, but to the very nature of our country.

It is interesting to note that over the last 200 years, the British economy has been based on many things: the ingenuity and brilliance of our people; the rule of law and the ability to predict the future based on prior agreement; the genius of economic reforms innovated out of Edinburgh and Glasgow; and the ability to keep trade moving. For most of our existence, that trade has been maritime trade of various descriptions. It has been guaranteed not just by an extraordinary industry of sailors and shipwrights who have created the vehicles of commerce, but by the Royal Navy, which has kept the sea lanes open, the sailors safe and the goods moving.

The truth is that over the last few years, the nature of that commerce—that commercial gain and exchange—has changed. We have gone from sea lanes to e-lanes. We have gone from looking at the red ensign as a guarantee of security at sea, to looking at GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre as a guarantee of security on the internet and in cyber-space. Those changes have been fundamental. They have enabled us to do things that are frankly quite remarkable. Look at the change in the way communication works that our country has been through in the four years since covid struck us. With so many of our lives going online—even this place went online briefly, although we seem to have forgotten how convenient that was—many of us have been able to transform the businesses that we were working in from local or national to global.

That change has been a phenomenal blessing, but none of it would have been possible without the dedication and brilliance of some remarkable individuals who have kept us safe. Those individuals started off being headquartered solely in Cheltenham. Those of who have had the privilege to visit Cheltenham know that the extraordinary brilliance and genius of those remarkable people has been fantastic not just for our country but for many partners and allies around the world.

What we see today is that it is not just the Government who need to be kept safe. The reality is that companies and individuals guarantee that security in many different ways. What we are talking about this evening is how the wider economy is defended. That is where the Government have made some important changes, which I hope will be built on in coming years. The cyber-security force that we have created is an essential part of keeping the UK’s commercial interests safe. It is a fundamental building block of our economy not just today but for the future.

The way that has worked with the National Cyber Security Centre is essential, because the reality is that the economy of Britian is not guarded simply by the Government, and national security is not limited to the arms of the state. It is fundamentally true that many suppliers to Government and many different institutions that connect to Government are also important. More than that, every single aspect of our lives is a part of keeping our country safe. Although it is true that the Government do not provide the food, the supermarkets that feed us every day are part of our national security. Although it is true that the Government do not move the money, the banks that keep us fluid in that sense are absolutely part of our national security. It is therefore true that all those capabilities—all the cyber-defence that goes into the wider economy and into our lives—keep us all safe. Sadly, one of the things that has distressed me most in this job is discovering the level of abuse that I am afraid is now prevalent online. Hon. Members will not require me to tell them this, but we see an explosion in online bullying and abuse, and sadly we have seen an explosion in online harm that has taken not just many young people, but many people from across every walk of life, to dark places—and in some cases, very sadly, cost lives.

The cyber work that we do is about protecting not just the state, the Government or even the economy, but homes and families across the United Kingdom. That is why the work that we are doing in the reform of the Computer Misuse Act is so important, because, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and particularly as the hon. Member for Preston put it, the changes we have seen online in the last 20 or 30 years since the Act was passed are phenomenal. The Act was passed before the internet, the iPhone and social media. It is, in a modern sense, historical; it is dated and based on an era when to hold data was to hold it on a solid drive in a computer, not in the ether or on the cloud. The nature of intervention to keep cyber-defences alive and test them was very different, and the Act was drafted for that era. That is why the work of Sir Patrick Vallance and the way in which he has approached it have been so important, and it is why we have been looking so carefully at what he recommends and at how to get the best answer out.

The truth is that any decision we make is going to be difficult. It is going to raise questions about the ways in which businesses work and partner with others around the world. The right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) asked about ransomware and the way in which it is changing. That is where the direction that we take it so important—for example, the counter-ransomware initiative that the United Kingdom led and changed in various ways, and the approaches we have taken to ensure that we are properly structured to get its benefits. The reason I am confident that we are going in the right direction is that we are setting the agenda.

In the 18 months since I had the privilege of becoming the Security Minister, we have launched at least two actions. Forgive me as I try to remember how many were public and how many were private; hon. Members will appreciate that in this job it is probably best to get that distinction right. I will say that we have launched at least two public actions alongside partners on counter-ransomware actions. Noticeably, one from about a year ago was against various Russian targets who had decided that it was to their advantage to try to extort and exploit organisations in the United Kingdom and United States. Our reactions—the ways in which we have partnered with allies and friends—have ensured that we are able not just to defend ourselves, but to make the punishment fit the crime. We are putting in place sanctions, closing down accounts and ensuring that we have those resources in partnership with organisations like the FBI to resist those different areas.

This subject also raises some questions about the state, which were hinted at. I will go a little further into it, because this is not just about individual actors, those in the so-called troll farms or the Internet Research Agency, which was so famously used by Russia recently; it is also about states themselves. Sadly, we are seeing states trying to use these forms of exploitation as means of profit. We have seen one state in particular, North Korea, seeking to quite literally use them as a cash cow—as a way of paying for its nuclear weapons programme, extorting money out of individuals around the world to advance its own hostile interests.

This is where some of the changes we have been able to make—alongside the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, to whom I pay tribute, and with support from parties on all sides—will, I think, make a substantial difference in the years to come. Those changes include the National Security Act 2023, which, through the various different elements of co-operation with foreign states, makes criminal actions that formerly would have merely been assisting or would have been hard to define; they may not necessarily have been breaches of the Official Secrets Act, or empowering or profiting a foreign state in a direct sense and in a way that would have been criminal. The National Security Act has been essential in making sure that espionage is properly punished and that the support of hostile states is now criminalised. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others, because that legislation has been an important change that has enabled us to make a difference.

We have seen various different ways in which states have used these sorts of powers. For example, I am afraid that we have seen the various different ways in which Beijing has been ordering different threats against us. I will not comment on things that are being gossiped about in different places—in main Chambers rather than in Westminster Hall—but I will say that the state-affiliated cyber group APT31 has been, and consistently remains, a threat targeted against the UK. I am afraid that we have seen that again and again, and we have had to take action to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves. This is one of those areas where the work of the National Cyber Security Centre has been so incredibly important in protecting not just the state but our wider economy—and that is where we have a wider mission, because the truth is that protecting the wider economy is about protecting not just all those areas, but families and individuals across our country.

I am proud of some of the work we have done alongside businesses, some of which are from the UK and some of which are international, which has enabled us to change some of the incentives and pressures on them. We have brought down fraud in the last year; 16% is not as far as I would like it to go, and I am sure that others in the House will recognise that there is further to go, but that is a hell of an achievement by some fantastically dedicated law enforcement professionals and their cyber partners to make sure that homes and families across the United Kingdom are safer.

We are moving further online. For instance, one can look at the national health service today, and see the amazing investment in technology and in the changing way in which we communicate with our doctors. As many of us know, the NHS app—which, I think I am right in saying, has been downloaded by about three quarters of all adults in the United Kingdom, although I will have to check that—is a fantastic way in which we can communicate across the medical professions. However, all of this means that we have wider vectors of attack, which means that it is enormously important to ensure that we are working together. That is why—I correct the hon. Member for Barnsley Central—although the National Security Council may not have a cyber element in that sense, there is a ministerial cyber board, which meets on a similar basis except that it is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and brings together Departments from all across Whitehall. That is an extraordinarily important place where we set the policy and make sure that it works together, because the UK Government are already doing a huge amount.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central asked about the policy of paying ransomware. We have set out that no public body should be using state money to pay ransomware. We have set out this agenda with the national health service and have been very clear to organisations, including the British Library, that it should not be happening. That policy has been made clear. It is also clear that some ransomwares that are being used for profit are being closed down. I do not know if Members are aware of the LockBit sanctions, but they have been incredibly important; in the last few days we have not just taken over the LockBit site—a brilliant piece of work by the National Crime Agency and others, including the FBI—but exposed the people behind it. That is an extremely important way in which we are taking the fight directly to the criminals who are challenging us and making sure that the National Cyber Force, which is soon to be wonderfully homed in Preston—

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Just next door.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Many of its people will be homed around there, I am sure, though they may work in other parts. That force is a fantastically important element in our national defence. While once we flew the white ensign to protect sea lanes, today we fly a different sign —a national cyber-security sign; and with wider British Government protection, we can protect our e-lanes of communication that keep us not just safe but free.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I thank those who have taken part in the debate, principally from the Front Benches, for their contributions and thoughts on the way forward with legislation in this area. We did not get a direct response from the Minister on whether there would be any attempt to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 this side of the election, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, we look forward to that at some stage. I cannot remember all the questions I posed—Hansard may now have disposed of them—but they are still pending with the Minister, so I hope he can write to me with answers. I look forward to hearing from him again.

I do feel very strongly about this issue, because apart from British Aerospace—BAE Systems, as it is now—and the new cyber centre that people are working away at, many of the important educational, technological and industrial developments taking place in and around my constituency in Lancashire are very important for local jobs and the economy, and in the national context. As all the Front-Bench contributors have said, the industry is a key part of keeping Britain and our constituents safe, and making sure that we continue to thrive in economic, political and democratic terms.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms Bardell. I am pleased that it has taken place, and hope it is a seed for further action in the coming weeks and months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered cyber security laws and tackling crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I appreciate the concerns that my right hon. Friend has raised. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will set out in more detail the Government’s response to the High Court’s judgment today on Rwanda, but it is the court’s opinion that the Rwanda policy is consistent with the UK’s obligations under both the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. May I ask the Home Secretary whether, at the end of the year, she will reflect on the comments that she made in early October about sending asylum seekers to Rwanda? She will be aware that a 28-year-old woman from Eritrea who was 37 weeks pregnant as a result of rape was in line for deportation. Does not talk of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda being a “dream” or an “obsession” show all the sensitivity and compassion of Jeremy Clarkson?

[Suella Braverman]

I regret the attempt by the hon. Gentleman to lower the tone of this debate. What I will say is that I will not apologise for telling the truth about the scale of the challenge that we are facing when it comes to illegal migration, and I will also reiterate my absolute commitment to delivering on the groundbreaking agreement that we have with Rwanda. It is compassionate, it is pragmatic, and I invite the Opposition parties to support it.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who spoke passionately about the cost of living crisis and the problems we face that have not really been addressed by the Government’s Bills.

First, in this new Session of Parliament, I will talk about the platinum jubilee. The Loyal Address has come weeks before this year’s celebration to mark 70 years since Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth became the monarch of the United Kingdom and the head of state of other territories and countries. For me, it is particularly poignant because 20 years ago, at the golden jubilee, as a result of the efforts of people in Preston, the council, other stakeholders and me, Preston was fortunate enough to receive city status in the golden jubilee competition in which 40 towns across England competed. I do not know which town will be chosen this year but I wish good luck to whichever town it is and the Member of Parliament who represents it, because we have seen considerable investment in Preston as its profile has been raised through its city status.

Despite the joyous occasion of celebrating the Queen’s platinum jubilee, the people of Preston and the country cannot help but be distracted by the real-time tragedy of the cost of living crisis that comes on the heels of two-plus years of hardship and sacrifice caused by the global pandemic. In the Queen’s Speech, the Government made it clear that they are not interested in easing the pain of people who are suffering now and will suffer in months to come. Between last year’s Queen’s Speech and last month’s spring statement by the Chancellor, no tangible action has been brought forward to address the cost of living crisis.

The country is in a state of emergency and on the brink of a potential recession, so people need help now. I echo the calls that the Government will have heard from Opposition Members for an emergency Budget to try to address that situation. At a time when high inflation is outstripping wage and benefit increases, in conjunction with recent tax increases, this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity to address the issues that matter most to people: their livelihoods and the future.

Today’s debate focuses on crime and justice. The Conservative party fancies itself as tough on crime, yet it has a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who have been issued with fixed penalty notices for breaking laws that they wrote. Crime is up while criminal enforcement is down, with thousands of criminals getting off without being charged or held accountable.

The same is true for fraud and computer misuse, with online fraud soaring during the pandemic and before, yet few fraudsters are being arrested. According to the figures that I have, 416,000 cases of fraud have been reported in the last year and £35 million has been stolen as a result of that fraud, but only 156 fraudsters have been arrested. People may conclude from that that crime does indeed pay.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to acknowledge that, although he is right that fraud and computer misuse have been rising and have been included in the overall crime numbers in the last few years, quite a lot of those offences are committed by people who are operating internationally and online and who are, therefore, particularly difficult to bring to justice because they are in other jurisdictions.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I certainly agree with that point. In fact, as the Minister knows, there has been a big shift away from things such as car and telephone theft. Many people are now finding that their identities are being stolen and fraud is taking place as a result of computer crime, which is a big problem. We certainly see problems in cyber-space in terms of defence. I am pleased that the cyber-security centre is coming to Lancashire and hopes to do a great deal in that area. I am still quite bemused by the size of the resources being committed to police forces up and down the country to tackle this sort of thing, and the lack of wherewithal for Companies House to try to tackle fraud with businesses. I have had a number of cases of online fraud in my own constituency, about which I have written to the Government.

With the Online Safety Bill having been carried over into this Session, we have seen how delay has allowed disinformation to spread like wildfire online, particularly during Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, which obviously speaks to the point I have just made about cyber-crime and cyber-security. We want to see more effort on scams included in the scope of that legislation, to which I know the Labour party is committed.

The data reform Bill will reform the way data is handled in the UK after Brexit. The Government have said that the changes will help to increase the competitiveness of UK businesses and boost the economy, but reinventing the wheel by finding an alternative to the general data protection regulation just so the Government can claim freedom from so-called EU red tape is a waste of time. It is posturing really, and just creating new standards for data security is not going to solve any problems.

On the question of security itself, with the current state of affairs internationally, I think the Government need to be reminded of how critical national security is. We welcome the National Security Bill, and we want to limit state threats activity in the UK. As has been witnessed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in state-backed interference in the UK before that, there are changing threats to the UK, and legislation on foreign interference must keep pace with the reality on the ground. We want better security and we support the National Security Bill, but we want this situation to be transformed quickly, with the cyber centre I have mentioned being constructed and the experts in there as soon as possible.

On the Public Order Bill, this should really be about tackling injustice. However, it is not about tackling injustice; it is about restricting further rights to protest in a legitimate way. There are extreme cases, as we saw here when people glued themselves to the glass in the Gallery overlooking the Chamber, but laws exist at the moment to deal with that sort of thing. The normal activity of demonstrations is something that, as a free country, we have come to expect, and if the Government are too heavy-handed on this, Bill will do a great deal more to cause problems by not allowing people to protest freely.

There is talk about an energy security Bill and how it will build on the success of last year’s COP26 environment summit in Glasgow, with a pledge to build up to eight nuclear power stations and to increase wind and solar energy production in the UK. Again, I, as a Labour Member, and my party will support an energy security Bill. In particular, an increase in the provision of nuclear power is a no-brainer to me. Over the last 20 years—I do stress the last 20 years, and I would include the Labour Government as well—what we have seen in this country is a lot of talk about nuclear without much being done. I certainly welcome the consideration given to small modular reactors, which will provide very efficient nuclear power from engines that were originally designed to power nuclear submarines rather than provide power to the public. There is potential for great developments to see us move towards a carbon-free future, and not only in this country, but for exports abroad. In the area of my constituency, we have Springfields—formerly British Nuclear Fuels, but now part of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation—which is a world leader in producing nuclear fuels. I think the 1,000-plus people who work at Springfields can look forward to extra work if this Government and any future Labour Government are committed to delivering on the ground, instead of just the talk we have had over the last 20 years.

[Marco Longhi]

On the very point of small modular reactors, does the hon. Member recognise that the Government have invested some £220 million at Rolls-Royce? It is not just talk, as he asserts.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Yes, and Mike Tynan, formerly of Westinghouse, who is a good friend of mine—he still lives near Preston—has been involved through the Advanced Manufacturing Centre in Sheffield and done a great deal of work in the area. After 12 years, I am glad that the Government finally see the benefit of that for the future, but it has taken the instability of the wholesale energy markets to bring that about. I would have liked to have seen it much earlier in this Government’s tenure or within Labour’s tenure. It should not take a war for us to move in that direction.

On energy security, I am concerned about restarting the debate about fracking. In Lancashire, we had an experimental phase of fracking, and I was quite agnostic about it when the coalition were in government and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was the Energy Minister, but I am not now, because in moving from experimentation towards production we saw tremors measuring seven or eight on the Richter scale. At the time, we were told that any tremors above two or three on the scale would be dangerous and assured that the Government would look at whether work should continue, but now the Secretary of State is starting to look again at fracking. He argues that the wholesale energy market has brought that on, but the decision to put a moratorium on fracking had nothing to do with that; it was about safety in production. It was never a consideration to lift the moratorium because of energy prices. It is a desperate attempt to bring that dangerous business to certain communities—in the north of England in particular—when it is not warranted on safety grounds or, for that matter, on energy grounds. Nuclear can provide the extra energy that we need, so I support the Government in what they are trying to do on nuclear, but they are making a mistake if they think that they can revisit fracking. Labour welcomes steps for a low-carbon economy and the commitment to nuclear, and the impact that that will have on our energy independence.

Today’s debate is also about justice and, when we discuss the delivery of justice, it would be remiss of us not to mention food injustice, which we see in this country at the moment. Justice is not just about what is happening in the courts; it is also about fairness and what is happening in society. I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and one of the co-operative movement’s founding principles is tackling hunger and food insecurity, which is critical in the face of a cost of living crisis. In one of the richest countries on earth, no one should go hungry.

Millions of people are affected by the cost of living, and in the UK 2 million people—mainly adults—have had a day when they went entirely without eating food. In this day and age, we should not accept that. We want a fair food Act that enshrines a commitment to zero hunger by 2030—a sustainable development goal that should be put into UK law—and a comprehensive national food strategy, but those were not included in the Queen’s Speech. If we were really concerned about justice, people’s ability to eat should be a priority, but the Government have not really considered that. It should have been in the Queen’s Speech. We are also aware that as many as 16 million people may be in poverty by 2023, which is less than a year away, and, according to the Resolution Foundation, 1.3 million are currently suffering in extreme poverty.

While not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, it is no secret that the Government are preparing new draft legislation to unilaterally scrap key parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, including chucking away checks on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, stripping away powers of the European Court of Justice and eliminating all requirements for Northern Irish businesses to follow EU regulations. That all comes from a Government and Prime Minister who negotiated and agreed to the protocol. In September 2020, the Government were prepared to break international law in

“a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

when it came to the protocol, before backing down. Yet here we are again as global Britain, issuing thinly veiled threats to Brussels under the guise of protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, all the while jeopardising relationships with Dublin, Brussels and Washington, and any credibility we would otherwise have with international trade partners.

The Government are currently trumpeting the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, which they are looking to put through the House. The degree of trade we have lost as a result of the shenanigans over Brexit and what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment is phenomenal. No amount of trade deals we are likely to do over the next five years will replace that loss. That is not what Brexit should have been about, according to the Government’s own declarations in the run-up to the referendum.

The Prime Minister said that the Brexit freedoms Bill, mentioned yesterday, would allow the UK to

“get on with growing our economy by making the most of our Brexit freedoms”.

by liberating the economy in the wake of the UK’s departure from the EU. Yet by overturning the protocol, the UK risks the possibility of trade retaliation during a cost of living crisis, which is a perfect storm in terms of the livelihoods of people in this country and the businesses that support those livelihoods. We are just now beginning to see the fallout from Brexit. We would have seen the fallout earlier but for covid, and now the effects of covid are being masked by increases in energy prices as a result of the Ukraine war. The cost of living crisis has several factors, which I have just mentioned. The Government are returning to the 2019 playbook of using the EU as a bogeyman following last week’s dismal election results, but people know the ruse and are tired of being taken for fools when it comes to Brexit and its so-called benefits.

The country cannot continue like this, with a cost of living crisis and the Government sleepwalking with a threadbare Queen’s Speech that will do little or nothing to improve the livelihoods and living standards of the people of this country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Computer Misuse Act 1990

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for securing this debate. Once upon a time I also applied for it, so I am glad that one of us got through the lottery.

I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cyber security, and this is an issue that we have looked at time and again. We have looked at specific reform of the CMA, and frankly, with almost any issue we concentrate on, we keep coming back to the challenges that the CMA brings up for professionals. As others have done, I thank CyberUp for the support it has given, both to the APPG and in advance of this debate. When reforms are made to the CMA, it will be due in no small part to the advocacy that CyberUp and industry have put behind this.

My view is that the CMA is holding the UK back and making us less secure. It needs reform, and the urgency is very keenly felt in the industry. It is frankly ridiculous that we are reliant on a piece of legislation that came into force at the time of Windows 3.0, before Google and Amazon, and crucially before the internet had come into common use.

In the last meeting of the APPG on cyber security we had Ciaran Martin, the former head of the National Cyber Security Centre, before us, and we asked his view. It is hard to articulate how much he rolled his eyes when I asked the question, but clearly the view of those who operate in this space is that the time for change is now.

As it is currently written—I apologise, Sir Mark, for going over some of the same ground—the CMA inadvertently criminalises a large proportion of vulnerability and threat intelligence research that UK cyber-security professionals must carry out to protect the UK from cyber-threats such as the one affecting No. 10 that is in the news today, ransomware attacks and those from state actors such as Russia.

Let us be clear: the legal jeopardy that cyber-security professionals face is not theoretical but very real. We have heard from professionals who have been at the sharp end of the law for merely doing their jobs—probing weaknesses in order to fix them. At a time when the world has never been more connected, and there is inter-reliance between news, messaging, shopping, banking, security and leisure—the web of systems that hold modern society together—we need to ensure that the laws are fit for purpose and fulfil the roles they were enacted to achieve. I firmly believe that this one does not and we are the poorer for it.

It is worth spending a little time putting this in context and detailing the main challenges of an unreformed CMA. Cyber-security professionals identify vulnerabilities in products and services and work with manufacturers and vendors to fix them. They detect cyber-attacks, gain insights into attackers and victims, lessen the impact of incidents and prevent future ones. The Government’s “National Cyber Strategy 2022” recognised the value of that important work. It committed to building valuable and trusted relationships with the cyber-security researcher community to deliver a reduction in those vulnerabilities. But the CMA is currently a block to that, irrespective of the intent or motive of those doing the work. That leaves the UK’s cyber defenders having to act with one hand tied behind their back, because much of their defensive work requires interaction with compromised victims’ and criminals’ computer systems where owners will not give access or explicitly permit such activities.

Another aspect is that the Act is having a really damaging impact on the cyber-skills pipeline. In 2018, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy concluded that a shortage of “deep technical expertise” was one of the greatest challenges faced by the UK in relation to cyber-security. This year’s national cyber-security strategy made explicit the need to grow and improve sectoral skills in order to build UK resilience to threats. But we should be clear about the chilling effect that the CMA is having on doing that and the challenges that it throws up. The sector needs a diverse range of minds in order to continue to grow and to adapt to a changing environment. High-profile prosecutions enabled by the CMA for little more than pursuing public interest investigations reinforce negative stereotypes that may deter some from pursuing a career in cyber-security. If the UK is to meet the challenge of closing the cyber skills gap, it needs to stop criminalising the activity, and ultimately talent, that is needed to promote the industry and grow its share of the global cyber-security services market, which is currently dominated by North America. That will not only grow cyber skills in our own economy, but help to build cyber resilience and better defend the UK.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, there are relatively simple tweaks that we think could be made to this legislation that would make a big difference in this space. They would unlock huge opportunities for the sector and our national resilience. As has been mentioned, the inclusion in the CMA of a statutory defence, not a blanket one—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) was absolutely right on that—would give cyber-security professionals acting in the public interest a clear defence from prosecution. That would provide legal clarity for individuals, the industry and the state. We can learn much from our international partners in this space about how to achieve a fair balance and enact safeguards to ensure that new freedoms are not abused by those who are not on the side of the angels. I am talking about a clear framework that measures the defensibility of an action, proportionality, intent and competence and looks at a harm-benefit profile. They are the sorts of principles that we should be considering when looking at reform.

It seems bizarre that as we launch the National Cyber Force in Lancashire and as my local town deal brings a university campus focused on cyber-security in Barrow, the legal framework that will enable these people to do their jobs and practise their craft is lagging behind. It is clear from the national cyber-security strategy that, as a country and a Government, we do not lack aspiration in this space, and that is a really good thing. It is the burden of advanced nations to have to defend these new frontiers, but we must ensure that the framework is in place to support our good efforts and deliver on the opportunities that the strategy speaks about. A very good step would be reforming this Act and ensuring that those acting in the public interest have protection from unjust litigation. Doing that would make us all safer.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

While we are on the subject of the new cyber-security centre, I too am very pleased that it is coming to Lancashire; it is next door to my constituency. Like Mr Baker, I am proud to have studied computer science at master’s level—in my case at the University of Manchester—so I am very pleased with the developments and the way that things are going forward. We will hear from the Front Benchers now.

Stalking Advocates

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that the petition being debated today directly relates to the death of Gracie Spinks in June last year. An investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct is ongoing, and the inquest relating to the death of Gracie Spinks remains active. Mr Speaker has agreed to exercise the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow limited reference to the death of Gracie Spinks. However, I ask that Members do not refer to the detailed speculation about the circumstances surrounding the death, including the conduct of the police in this case.

I remind Members to observe social distancing, and to wear masks. I invite Tonia Antoniazzi to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I 100% agree. I take my hon. Friend back to my terrorism analogy: imagine if we allowed the police to freestyle how they dealt with terrorism—that we did not have specific tasks that police force areas had to follow.

The same priority is never given to male violence against women. It is never, ever considered to be the most pressing issue. More than 20% of all police call-outs are cases of violence against women and girls. Do we think that those cases get 20% of the policing budget in any area? Can we all guess? I do not want to turn this into a pantomime, Sir Mark, but I think we can all guess that they do not get anywhere near that amount. The reality is that this support has to be driven with the political will shown by the 100,000 people who signed the petition. The hon. Member for Bolsover said that he was proud that this was the issue that mattered to his people. The country has spoken again and again in the last two years—more so than ever before—to say, “This issue matters to us.”

In my lifetime of working in this area, which now seems like many lifetimes, I have never known the country to push this as an issue of political will quite as much as it has in the wake of Sarah Everard’s death. These things will only change when every police force area knows that if it does not, the chief constable will be sacked. This proposal will only work if the issue is addressed when allocations of budgets come from the Government. Although I like the £151 million, the Minister and I both know—because it has been announced quite a few times over the years—that £125 million is going to refuge accommodation and has nothing to do with the police. It will go to local councils to offer refuge accommodation—not necessarily to the standard that I would like to see, but still better than nothing.

The reality is that we in this place have to say that, crime-wise, this issue is our priority and we are going to push it through to the bitter end, so that when a Prime Minister stands up and says that the single most important thing a leader can do—the first line of Government—is to ensure the safety and security of their citizens, in their head they are remembering that women and girls exist.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

For information, the University of Central Lancashire is in Preston, in my constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate and doing justice to this vital subject. It really is an honour to be here.

I thank the other Members who are present. I am sure that there would have been more had it not been for events in the main Chamber. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for doing an extraordinary job, as men advocating for the women and girls in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and I may disagree on much, but I think we both agree that it is heartening and inspiring to see men coming together, because it is only when men stand up and demand change on behalf of women that we will see the change that we all want to see.

I also pay tribute to Jackie Barnett-Wheatcroft, who is with us today, for creating this petition. The amount of work that she has done to get this issue to the top of the agenda is not inconsiderable. It was a real pleasure and honour to speak to her and hear about her tireless efforts. She has taken this issue on because she cares about it, and that passion came across so clearly. It was wonderful to speak to her and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is also in the Gallery. As a Whip, he is not able to speak, but he was the conduit that allowed us to have that conversation. I pledge again that I will do everything in my power to help Jackie with her work to set up the charity, which I know will change people’s lives and be a massive source of support. To Jackie, I say thank you so much.

Of course, we must honour Gracie Spinks. Her name is not mentioned in the petition itself, but it is a tribute to her. You have enjoined me not to transgress and go beyond what I am allowed to say, Sir Mark, because the IOPC’s investigations mean this is a live case, but that does not prevent me from expressing my total shock and horror in reading about those awful events—I know that everybody shared that feeling. The issues goes wider than the area that Gracie comes from; constituents of mine in Redditch have signed the petition, as have people from across the country.

When we read about that tragic and senseless loss of life, we can all relate to it—whether or not we are parents does not matter. I extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to Richard and Alison, who are in the Public Gallery. I can only begin to imagine how terribly they must have suffered. I thank them for the tremendous amount of work they put into the petition, which has resulted in this hour-and-a-half discussion, and our dedication and effort. This is only the start of the change that they want to see.

I believe, Sir Mark, that I have enough time to set out what we are going to do, what we have already done, and what we will continue to do, as the petitioners have rightly requested.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave time for the Chair of the Petitions Committee to respond.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you for that reminder, Sir Mark; I will ensure that I leave enough time.

Stalking is at the heart of our “Tackling violence against women and girls” strategy, which we published in July. It is worth stepping back and reminding ourselves of why we needed that strategy, the consultation of which received the greatest number of responses to any Government consultation. That highlights that need, and we must all keep fighting and pushing—I include myself and the shadow Minister in that—to keep the issue at the top of the priority list for Government and for Members across the House.

We all have so many important things to focus on every day in our lives as parliamentarians but, as the shadow Minister said, the public care deeply about this topic, and that was reflected in the responses to the consultation. Of course, that was an immediate response following Sarah Everard’s death, but many other women have died—we all know about the work that the shadow Minister does every single year in Parliament to remind us of those deaths—and it is right that we continue to honour the victims in our work to take the strategy forward.

To reduce the risk of perpetrators committing further offences, as the strategy confirmed, we launched a fund for police and crime commissioners to run programmes to address the behaviour of domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators. The funds will provide programmes to cover a range of different methods for tackling stalking. It is right that we recognise that stalking only recently came on to the statute book in its current form. Our understanding is not quite as well developed as it is for many other crimes that involve serious violence against women and girls. That is why it is important that we have those programmes and evaluate the evidence so that we can understand what works. That work includes the development of a multi-agency stalking intervention project in Cambridgeshire, and the development of the compulsive and obsessive behaviour intervention programme in Surrey. The aim of all such programmes is to encourage behavioural changes to reduce the frequency and gravity of the abuse presented by the perpetrator, thereby improving the safety of and protection for the victim.

The strategy also refers to our commitments to improve the use of stalking protection orders. We introduced these orders just two years ago, and they can protect victims of stalking at the earliest possible opportunity and help to address the behaviour of perpetrators before they become entrenched or escalate. They have the flexibility to impose both restrictions and positive requirements on a perpetrator, and I am proud that the Government introduced them.

We know that there is more to do. We know that some forces have been applying for more of these orders than others. The violence against women and girls strategy confirmed that the Home Office would work with the police to ensure that all forces make proper use of the orders. That is why I have recently written to all chief constables whose forces have applied for fewer stalking protection orders than might have been expected to encourage them to always consider applying for one in stalking cases.

I did that in October, and I received responses from several forces setting out the measures they are taking to make sure these orders are being used appropriately. I am pleased that one of the responses I received was from Derbyshire police, which is rightly taking a number of actions, including the delivery of a force-wide training programme specifically for stalking offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

That is an excellent suggestion. If we have not already done so, I will ensure that that happens. In any case, the Ministry of Justice will look very closely at all the consultation responses received on this issue and many others.

I will briefly touch on what is happening in terms of the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA for short—because they are vital. They are specifically about how offenders are managed, which several Members have touched on. It is important that agencies make use of MAPPA to strengthen the effective management of serial and high-harm perpetrators of stalking and domestic abuse, and the national MAPPA team works closely with local strategic management boards to support implementation at a local level. This is about having the most appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that we keep people safe from harm.

We are also shortly due to publish a domestic abuse strategy that will seek to transform our response to domestic abuse in order to prevent offending—of course, stalking is a key part of the domestic abuse pattern of offending—support victims and pursue perpetrators. That will include a specific section on the risks associated with stalking. Some very good points have been raised about the pattern of offences and the escalation process. A couple of Members touched on education and what we are doing in schools, and we are already working with colleagues in the Department for Education.

I also want to let Members know that we will release a national education campaign about violence against women and girls. This will be quite a groundbreaking piece of work. We are talking about changing that misogynistic culture that everyone has spoken about, and making it absolutely clear that we probably all know a perpetrator—not necessarily a murderer, but someone who is not behaving in a respectful way to their female friends, associates, colleagues or partners. This communications campaign is specifically designed to make crystal clear what is and is not acceptable in the public and domestic sphere. I am really looking forward to the campaign and will pay close attention to it, as I am sure will all hon. Members here, and I encourage them to amplify it through their own communication channels, to get out the message out that this Government do not put up with those kinds of behaviours, whether they are on the street or whether they are serious crimes such as stalking, harassment and murder.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Gower for introducing the debate in order to raise this important issue. I will of course follow up on the points Members pressed me on. I could say a lot more, but unfortunately time is short, and I want to allow the hon. Lady the opportunity to respond to the debate.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call Tonia Antoniazzi, who is a member of the Petitions Committee, not the Chair.

Far-right Violence and Online Extremism

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

All I can say is that we have very strong links with the Welsh Government and the police and counter-terrorism units in Wales. I have visited a number of sites. We speak regularly, including when it comes to conducting exercises across the United Kingdom so that we can practise our response, and I regularly see bulletins about what is going on in Cardiff and other parts of Wales. I am confident that the Welsh police do an outstanding job in dealing with this issue. Many Members in this House bring examples to me involving the far right. I am confident that they are doing a very good job, and I will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that it is delivered.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Security Minister assure communities in Lancashire of the Islamic faith, of any other faith or of no faith that everything is being done through the security and intelligence services and the police to monitor and deter potential attackers from targeting places of worship, including online activity and political campaigns aimed at Muslims and other minority faiths? This should not just be about tolerance, which means accepting something whether we like it or not, but be about mutual respect. Let us talk more about mutual respect, not just tolerating something even though we might not like it.

[Mr Wallace]

How we respond to that tolerance is about mutual respect: whether we disagree and disagree in a manner that accepts people as equals or whether we disagree and denigrate them for having a different view is about respect. The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours in Lancashire, and we both represent a multicultural society that has worked very well together. I am determined to make sure that we work with Lancashire constabulary to deliver it, but I know that Preston City Council will help deliver some of the solutions as well, as indeed will he and I as civic leaders.

Police Grant

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

He’s lying!

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not hear anything said that was out of order. If I did not hear it, I cannot act on it. At this point, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) is intervening, so we will hear that. If somebody wants to raise a point of order or whatever, he or she is free to do so, but I cannot comment on something that I did not hear.

[Mr Hendrick]

When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms assuming council tax was maximised, I—like many others—welcomed the news. Last year’s cuts to grant funding were a uniform 0.6% and this year’s provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to direct resource funding. How does that square with what the Minister said?

[Brandon Lewis]

I can only repeat what I said earlier: last year, we protected police spending when the precept is taken into account. The overall level of government funding allocated to police is exactly as announced in the 2015 spending review at £8.497 billion.

I am delighted that the Policing and Crime Act 2017 received Royal Assent on 31 January because it allows us to ensure that we are working towards implementing many provisions that will further help policing to reform and deliver in the future. The Act ensures that collaboration between police forces and with other public services to better tackle emerging threats can go further and faster, providing efficiencies to ensure that money is spent on the frontline delivering for the communities in which the police work. There is substantial evidence showing that closer collaboration between the emergency services can improve public safety, secure more efficient services and deliver better value for money for taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hendrick]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the funding formula review has been shrouded in mystery, the Minister having given no details of the main indicators to be implemented in its outcome? He cannot even tell us when the review will be finished, which leaves police forces—which will be on the end of the funding, once the formula is introduced—scratching their heads over the future.

[Holly Lynch]

My hon. Friend is right. When the report was produced, I was a little confused about whether it referred to the formula for next year or the year after that, because we had not been given the necessary detail about what is coming up. He is also right about the uncertainty that that has fostered in police forces that are trying to respond to the challenges they face.

Efficiencies alone cannot offset the cuts. We know that the amounts that police and crime commissioners can collect through the precept vary greatly, with the poorest unable to finance the shortfall in the grant required to meet the demand, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and others. West Yorkshire is the fourth largest force, taking in Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. The Leeds district alone is bigger than some forces. With our diverse communities, we have a lot to offer, but sadly that sometimes presents challenges as well, as many of us know. We encompass a number of Prevent priority areas, and our socio-economic characteristics and pockets of deprivation increase policing needs, with demand similar to that faced by the West Midlands and Greater Manchester police. We take in some of the urban areas, such as Leeds and Bradford—bigger than others in the north—but also cover some of the sweeping rural areas that straddle the Pennines.

We have already heard from some hon. Members that the formula should be based on population size, but I do not believe that the police grant recognises the pressures from complex, evolving crimes, such as cybercrime, human trafficking, the demands of preventing child sexual exploitation and missing persons inquiries.

To provide an example, the Black Health Initiative in Leeds estimates that some 2,600 women and girls in the city have undergone or are at risk of female genital mutilation. West Yorkshire police and our police and crime commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, are working with organisations to combat this risk, but as the Home Office knows, this is sensitive and painstaking work.

We face challenges relating to firearms and serious and organised crime in West Yorkshire. Hon. Members will be aware of the firearms incident that occurred just outside my constituency after Christmas, and nobody needs any reminder that we lost our dear friend Jo to a man in possession of a firearm in the region. Increased awareness of exploitation in all its ugly forms—from child sexual exploitation, of which there were 609 cases last year in West Yorkshire, to human trafficking, of which there were 142 recorded cases in West Yorkshire—means that policing priorities have rightly changed to reflect that, but the resources allocated from central Government have not.

During my time with the West Yorkshire police, I was able to see the difficulties of having constantly to divert crews into locating missing people, which is compromising neighbourhood policing work and eating into the number of officers available for 999 calls. In the 24 hours leading up to the shift that I did with officers, Calderdale police had safely recovered nine vulnerable missing people and were involved in looking for an additional seven the following day. As colleagues have already mentioned, the pressures caused by cuts to other services have an impact on policing at the same time as it faces its own financial pressures.

The weekly average for Calderdale is 43 missing people, with 416 a week going missing across the force. West Yorkshire police responded to more than 20,000 occurrences of missing people last year, which is staggering and completely unsustainable. We have had a safeguarding uplift to meet that demand, but those officers have come from neighbourhood policing, so the numbers are down across the vital neighbourhood policing teams that I work so closely with in my role as an MP—I am sure others do, too.

I have sought to spend time shadowing frontline services in my constituency since my election in order to understand the work that they do and the pressures they are under to inform my work here on their behalf. Again, the rhetoric in the Minister’s statements seems so far away from what I have seen and from the conversations that I have had. When I visited out-of-hours mental health services, I spent all night sat with two police officers who were unable to leave someone detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. They had to listen to and then call off the call for assistance—on bonfire weekend—because they could not leave a young nurse on her own with a gentleman who did not agree that he should be detained and who was becoming increasingly aggressive.

I have been out with the Halifax Street Angels, a great initiative through which volunteers seek to ensure that people have a safe time on their night out in my constituency. That alleviates some of the pressures on the police, and conforms to the idea of the big society in action. However, they expressed concerns to me that the demands on the police are so high that they cannot always respond when the volunteers encounter fights or potentially violent individuals, and the good will and partnership working are being undermined. Such organisations start to lose confidence in the police if they cannot respond when they are needed, which then really undermines some of the great partnership work that goes on.

The Minister is well aware of my concern, already expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), that reduced numbers mean that officers themselves are particularly vulnerable to assaults when they are out on their own as a single crew. I hope that the Minister will consider any and all measures to protect officers, including the measures outlined in my ten-minute rule Bill.

Ahead of the publication of the revised funding formula that we expect in the spring, I ask the Minister to factor in the different demands placed on forces beyond simply population and geography. We need a formula that recognises the imbalance between the amounts that different forces can harvest through the precept, and the Minister needs to adopt a formula that genuinely meets the demands on policing and allows officers to do the job that they do so well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Lancashire has been one of the top-performing police forces in the country for many years, and in some ways it has been a victim of its own success. Despite the improvements in its performance and efficiency, it has been on the receiving end of this Government’s cuts for a number of years. Given that success, however, I pay tribute to County Councillor Clive Grunshaw, our police and crime commissioner, and especially to Chief Constable Steve Finnigan, who is retiring this year after giving many years’ service to the people of Lancashire.

The police face financial and demand pressures as partner services are cut, and they also face the challenges posed by uncertainty about the future. The financial uncertainty caused by the return of the police funding formula review particularly affects forces such as Lancashire’s. Last time, mistakes were made in the process which suggested that Lancashire would lose about £25 million a year, on top of the £76 million-worth of savings that have been made since 2010. Even when the figures were revised, it was clear that more than £8 million a year would be taken out of its annual policing budget. That meant that it faced savings of more than £100 million a year by 2020, in comparison with 2010, which is the equivalent of more than a third of its budget.

Reform of the police funding formula is overdue, as has been pointed out by the Home Affairs Committee and by Members here today. It is vital for the new formula to represent accurately the demands on police forces. All forces need to be adequately resourced, but that must be done without disadvantaging other areas where tough choices are already being made so that necessary savings can be delivered. My constituents tell me repeatedly that they do not want resources to be taken out of policing, and have therefore supported increases in the policing precept. Further cuts will have an impact on officer numbers, as about 80% of the constabulary’s total budget consists of staffing and officer costs.

When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms, assuming that council tax was maximised, I, along with many others, welcomed that news. Last year’s cuts in grant funding were a uniform 0.6%, and this year’s provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut in direct resource funding. While those cuts are considerably better than was originally expected in 2015, they still mean that Lancashire must absorb normal inflation and other Government-imposed cost pressures, such as the national insurance changes, the national living wage, and the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. As a result, it must still deliver £4 million of savings in 2017-18, with a further £14 million to be found by 2019-20.

I am also disappointed that there is to be a further reduction in police capital grant in 2017-18. Regular IT replacement cycles impose a significant cost on the force, but that investment is vital to ensure improved productivity and efficiency in future years. The reduction in grant means that the burden on scarce revenue resources is increased, as borrowing to meet those costs is an unattractive option in view of the relatively short life cycles of IT assets.

The Minister did not mention top-slicing in his opening speech. The value of top-slices will have increased significantly in 2017-18, by over £100 million. That increase is more than the assumed year-on-year increase in precept income from the 2016-17 level nationally. It could be argued that local taxpayers are, in effect, funding the growth in national programmes.

There is no information about the detailed plans for the £175 million transformation fund for 2017-18. Until that information is provided, the treasurer of my council will be unable to gauge how much of the funding might be returned to the service. In recent years, the Government have shifted towards creating funding pots for the police service to bid for, and that bidding process can be laborious and possibly fruitless at a time when resources are thinly stretched. We would also like an assurance that the proposed £525 million increase in the transformation fund in 2018-19—to provide a total fund of £700 million—will not be met by further top-slices in the grant that is distributed to police and crime commissioners. A further reduction of that magnitude in direct funding for policing would have a very detrimental effect on the ability of forces to deliver their services to the public.

The top-slice taken to fund the emergency services network programme has increased significantly, at a time when the implementation of the network is consistently being pushed further and further back. It concerns me that, according to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the new programme, the December 2019 cut-off point may not be met. That may mean that the existing Airwave contract will be extended, at a potential cost of nearly £500 million. At a time when resources for policing are stretched to an unprecedented level, it does not seem prudent to remove funding from forces to pay for a programme that is not making progress. I would be grateful for any information or reassurances that the Minister and the Department can provide about the ability to meet the timescales in question, or about the protection of individual forces’ budgets from any overrun costs arising from the ESN or the extension of Airwave contracts.

I would also appreciate more certainty in general about the future level of top-slicing. It has increased each year, but at inconsistent levels, which makes the forecasting of future resources and their allocation extremely difficult. The Government are making financial planning and the prudent management of public funding considerably more difficult than they need to be.

Mental health services have received a great deal of media attention recently. It is widely understood in the sector that mental health is a key driver of demand for policing. When I met my local chief constable a couple of weeks ago, I was told that 80% of incoming calls to the police were not even crime-related, and many involved mental health problems. While the police have received relative protection from this round of Government austerity, the same cannot be said of many of our blue light partners. Local government has been severely affected and, despite additional resources, the pressures on health are well documented and have been made clear by other Members. As a result, the service is facing increased pressure from cuts to other sectors’ funding. I therefore ask Ministers present today, the Home Office and other Departments to ensure that investment in other relevant sectors, such as the health service, the courts and the prisons, is maintained in order to generate benefits for the police service. Cutting these other services is having an indirect effect on the operation of the police service.

I ask the Minister to speak to the Chancellor and make representations on this year’s Budget. I hope that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, will take account of the issues I have raised, in order to improve the police service to the people of Lancashire and elsewhere throughout the country.

Stop-and-Search

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figure in the HMIC survey showing that 27% of stop-and-searches did not have reasonable grounds was shocking. That is precisely why we will change the code of conduct—code A—under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to make absolutely clear what reasonable grounds of suspicion are.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In seeking to improve stop-to-arrest ratios, how will the Home Secretary measure success: by a reduction in the number of stops or an increase in the number of arrests—rightful or wrongful—which she may inadvertently encourage?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, I want the number of stops to come down. The Metropolitan police has already been able to do that through the changes it has made. I want the stop-to-arrest ratio to go up. We will ensure that the training of officers is such that, with the other measures that I am taking, I expect precisely such changes to come through as a result of our reforms.

Home Affairs and Justice

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). If I may summarise what she has just said, it is that if we do not address child development, education and mental health, a heavy price will be paid in the criminal justice system and by victims. She is right: prevention is better than cure.

I have declared my intention to stand for selection as the Labour candidate in the election for police and crime commissioner for south Wales. I am not sure whether a formal declaration of interest is required. One friend said that in Sir Humphrey’s terms, it was courageous to stand for an experimental role at a time of draconian cuts in police cash and numbers. I do so in the belief that the role will be difficult and challenging, and that it cannot be left to chance. The commissioner will have a contribution to make on the issues that I want to raise.

The Government are taking big risks with police finances and numbers. There is real anger among police officers, who are represented outside the Houses of Parliament today, and among many others who have already left the police force although they did not wish to do so. That is why the shadow Home Secretary was able to wipe the floor with the Home Secretary earlier.

The problem goes beyond statistics on cash and police numbers. The Government are making major changes in the policing landscape. It is a muddle. Against the background of cuts that are being made too far and too fast, we have the loss of senior and experienced police officers. Last year, there were riots in a number of English cities and we still do not know enough about why they happened. We did not have a report of the sort Lord Scarman produced after the riots in the 1980s, and although the Home Affairs Committee has issued a good report it does not enable us to predict what might trigger similar events in the future. What is certainly true is that the loss of police officers, especially those who are senior and experienced, will make it difficult to deploy police in the numbers and at the speed they were needed last August should such events happen again.

It is unhelpful to have so much talk about the front line—a term that ignores the important roles played by people in the background who undertake work on terrorism, child protection and internet-related offending. I am disappointed that, as my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, it is far from clear what Mr Winsor means by the front line in his report, or what the chief inspector of constabulary or Ministers mean by that term.

My right hon. Friend referred to the reputation that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has earned in such places as Turkey, Colombia and the USA, as I have been able to hear for myself. I reinforce his request that the Home Secretary try to find some way of retaining that branding. Why not call that division of the agency the serious and organised crime arm? That would allow the branding to be retained, if not in this country at least in our relationships with forces abroad.

A more problematic issue is that we are unclear where the many responsibilities that lie with the National Policing Improvement Agency will end up. The Home Affairs Committee has asked many questions about that, but the answer we receive is “We’ll let you know in the fullness of time.” That is not good enough.

Much has been said about the intention to create a new professional body for policing. It sounds fine and dandy. Why should there not be a body for policing just as there is for workers in a variety of other professions, including medicine? The problem is that there is no clarity about what that professional body will be. It cannot be a body that is “owned” by chief police officers—a successor to the current arrangements for representing chief police officers. It needs to be able to focus on professionalism and training. We have seen very little so far about the resources, the structure and the arrangements that would be necessary for creating that body. It is an aspiration, but we have seen no details of what would deliver professionalism and help to reinforce the need for professional police officers to feel professional and respected and to be respectable in the work that they do.

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on the need for opportunities and a clear future for our young people. In that connection, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made some pertinent comments. If that need is not addressed, we will build up problems for the future.

My decision to stand for Parliament resulted from deep frustration at working with unemployed young people and young offenders in the 1980s, during the time of the Thatcher Government, which to my mind was a complete and utter disaster. I felt that something had to be done to take a grip on the failures that that Government were creating, both in terms of building a strong economy and addressing the needs of young people. I am afraid that, under the current Government, we seem to be going at an accelerated pace down the road the Thatcher Government took us, and which the years of Labour government, thank goodness, managed to reverse to a considerable extent.

I want to say a word or two about antisocial behaviour, because that is the issue that affects many individuals, families and whole communities. In tackling antisocial behaviour, the antisocial behaviour order is a very important instrument. It was deeply disappointing when, in July 2010, the Home Secretary, in the words of the headlines, declared a death knell for the antisocial behaviour order. Little has been done since then either to deliver on that “promise”—if it was a promise; I would see it as more of a threat—or to deal with antisocial behaviour. Doing away with antisocial behaviour orders would not be a sensible contribution to tackling antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders have been effective when used properly and intelligently, and I am pleased to say that in my area, the South Wales police and the local authorities that they work with have developed ways of using them that have been effective in protecting local communities.

The antisocial behaviour order is a simple and effective measure and it is regrettable that instead of improving its use and effectiveness—there is certainly potential for doing that—the Government are allowing it to be strangled in bureaucracy and red tape and undermining its effectiveness. I remind the House that the purpose of the order is to prevent and stop a series of events that damage the lives of local people.

It is a matter of fact that many people’s lives are ruined by a series of low-level nuisance activities—very often ones that do not quite reach the point where a prosecution or a serious police investigation is justified, but which nevertheless are ruining the lives of neighbours and individuals in the community. It is not a question of one serious incident; it is more like a movie film of minor irritation and low-level nuisance. It is a fact that antisocial behaviour orders have worked well in nipping that sort of activity in the bud.

The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission said in their report that our approach to antisocial behaviour worked, with 65% of the NAO’s review sample desisting after the first intervention and 93% after the third. That is an outcome to be desired because it stops the activity, and it is a fact that criminal records create an obstacle to employment and rehabilitation. By allowing things to continue, by not nipping things in the bud, one makes it more likely that offending will continue and an individual life will be ruined. The answer is not to ignore or condone that activity but to stop it. That is why the antisocial behaviour order is a civil order, based on evidence of nuisance activity to the civil burden of proof. Making such an order does not lead to a criminal conviction; if the individual ceases that activity, nothing follows. There is not a conviction. It is not something that stands in the way of their resuming a useful life. A breach of the order leads to prosecution on the basis of the criminal test of evidence and to a criminal conviction, but is not the aim of the order. The aim is to stop bad behaviour, and properly used the order has been enormously beneficial. I say to the Home Secretary: stop messing about with the antisocial behaviour order. Tidy up the system—increase its efficiency and by all means simplify it—but do not throw out the baby with the bath water by getting rid of the antisocial behaviour order.

Another gap in the Queen’s Speech is anything to deal with violence against women and domestic violence generally. We have been promised legislation in Wales, but there is nothing on that subject in the Queen’s Speech. That is another example of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales tackling an issue that is not of itself part of the criminal justice system, but where effective legislation would prevent people from coming into the criminal justice system through their offending. Many incidents of domestic violence, often against women but also directly and indirectly damaging to children, go unreported, perhaps until a wife or partner has been through seven, eight or more violent incidents. Prosecution and conviction are important, but that simple fact demonstrates the urgent need for systems of early support and intervention to be in place. Such systems require specialist support services, which may cost money in the short term, but save money in terms of police time, court and legal costs and NHS costs—repeated injuries can incur significant costs. Early intervention can help to avoid the family break-up that becomes inevitable following repeated and escalating violence.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the situation will get worse now that the Government are withdrawing legal aid for victims of domestic violence?

[Alun Michael]

Yes, indeed I do, because the provision of legal aid can help to resolve the direct problem. That measure, combined with the cuts in local government services, particularly in England, which have led in some places to the ending of support and early intervention services, mean that serious problems are likely to arise and to escalate, as my hon. Friend says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Before I came to this place, I was a councillor for 24 years, during which time I examined the problems of young people and the failure of the local authority to permit any adoptions whatever for an extended period. Early adoption, so that loving parents can take over looking after a baby, is crucial. Adoption used to take place very much quicker if, unfortunately, children were not wanted or their parents were not able to look after them. Now, of course, many thousands of children across the country are left in care for far too long and never get adopted. It is far better for there to be adopted babies rather than adopted young children. That is important.

I am delighted that we will be enshrining in law what the Labour party talked about when in power and we talked about in opposition—making sure that race will not be the single issue determining whether someone can adopt a child.

On the draft communications Bill, having spent 19 years working for British Telecom and having gone around the specialist units of the Metropolitan police, I have seen at first hand the huge increase in the use of mobile phones, texting and electronic data in general. The internet has transformed the whole of society. One issue for those who understand the technicalities is that it is one thing to detect when someone with a fixed internet protocol address joins the internet, but it is quite another when a dynamic IP address is used. If someone is a criminal or terrorist, they are likely to know about those technical aspects and avoid detection. We have to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of changing the law and putting an unnecessary burden on the vast majority of people in the country, while not catching any terrorist at all. That is my immediate concern.

I believe in the fundamental civil liberties of the individual—the right for people to go about their lawful business as they choose, with minimum interference from the state. We recognise, of course, that some liberties have to be given up so that general liberty is preserved. However, I am pleased with the clarification on the Bill—that we will not have a Government database of a huge amount of e-mail traffic. Goodness knows what the size of that database would be if it included the vast growth in e-mail and text messages. At the moment, there is software that will easily do searches of key words and strings of particular words to search all e-mail traffic across the UK. However, I suspect that that would not be helpful, as criminals and would-be terrorists would quickly develop a code that excluded all the tracked words.

I have discussed with the Met police paedophile unit the vast growth in the number of paedophiles who use the internet to groom young people for their horrible purposes. Without going into the details of what the Met police do operationally, they say that they are just capturing the tip of a very large iceberg. We must all be concerned that there are vulnerable young people who are being groomed by those evil people. Let us be clear: they are evil people who need to be caught and punished to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. It is therefore vital that the law is changed to enable the police to do more to trap those people and to make sure that they are suitably punished. That must trump everything else.

On processes for dealing with crime and the courts, I fear that with 43 police forces across the country acting independently, criminals, particularly organised criminals who carry out their crimes across the UK, have the opportunity of not being detected. A national crime agency that will deal with this right across the UK, ensuring co-operation between police forces and taking over responsibility, must be the right way forward.

I am equally of the view that our borders must be protected. A national border force that will ensure that people who lawfully come to this country can enter, but those who try to enter illegally cannot, must, likewise, be the right way forward. Interestingly, the Queen’s Speech suggests no changes to immigration law, and that is right. Instead, we need to ensure that the existing rules are operated properly and thoroughly so as to be fair to everyone concerned. I noted the comments by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about people entering the UK for family parties, weddings, other celebrations, and funerals, and I share his view that there are serious problems in that regard. However, many of those problems would be solved if the applicants were properly advised to put their application in correctly with all the relevant details to prevent their being not allowed to enter the country and then having to appeal, which is a costly and totally unnecessary process.

[Mark Hendrick]

As somebody who gets a good number of immigration cases, I have noticed that there are more and more refusals. I think that is linked to the artificial limits that the Government are putting on to non-EU immigration rather than necessarily the eligibility of people to travel to this country for events such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s comments on that.

[Bob Blackman]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. One of the key concerns of people who have chosen to live in this country, be they of whatever origin, is that far too many people are entering the country. It is right that people who have relatives in other parts of the world should be allowed, if they wish, to have them here to visit—that is the key word—for a short period and then return. However, those visits can tend to be rather extended, with people overstaying their visas and then no action being taken, over many years, to make sure that they return. These serious concerns are shared by many people right across the various different communities that make up our great British nation. The Government must look into the matter, because the people of this country clearly expect the sheer numbers of people choosing to come to join us and live here to be reduced drastically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. I agree totally with his analysis, but the Government’s measures to do away with appeals will not solve the problem. All that will happen is that people will put in a fresh application, which will create even more administration.

[Bob Blackman]

The issue of appeals is interesting. My caseload is similar to that of many other Members. When people are forced to lodge an appeal, it is almost always the case that they have failed to put the relevant information on the application in the first place. If people got their applications right, they would not need to appeal because they would be admitted rather than refused. The clear solution is to have proper advice and a proper process. People gaining permission to come to the UK before they get anywhere near booking flights is the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I shall do my best to follow your wise counsel, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I confess that I did not agree with everything that he said, but I did agree with some of it. Especially interesting was his point about specialist police units. Many of those units do not qualify as front-line policing. That must be borne in mind when we debate police resourcing in this country. I will say a bit more on that later.

In debates such as this, it is easy to cover a whole kaleidoscope of issues, as many hon. Members have done today. I do not propose to do that in my speech, in the hope that if I speak primarily on one issue, Ministers might be more likely to listen to what I have to say. I hope so. The issue I have chosen to focus on is driving offences. I believe it correct to prosecute drink-driving vigorously. There is nothing clever, macho or in any way sophisticated in being over the limit for drink-driving. I greatly welcome the change in social attitudes that has taken place on this issue in recent years.

I believe that it is right, too, to have a proper punishment for people who drive while under the influence of drugs. I very much welcome the fact that this will be made a specific offence under the Crime and Courts Bill. I do not believe that there are any currently reliable statistics on how many people have been killed by drug-drivers, but there is one thing that we all know too well—that being drugged at the wheel and putting other people’s lives at risk is totally unacceptable and demands the toughest penalties possible. I hope that the introduction of this specialist offence will not only make our roads safer, but will bring home the message that people who are high on substances on our roads are not just a nuisance—they are criminals.

In the spirit of welcoming this change, I call on the Government to be bolder in this area. One way of doing so is by tightening up on other driving offences that also cause enormous suffering and harm. Chief among these, I think, is the menace of driving without a licence or without insurance.

Last year, I spoke in another debate in this place about the case of nine-year-old Robert James Gaunt. Robert was tragically killed in March 2009 while crossing the road in the village of Overton in my constituency. I do not know whether Members know where Overton is, but it is a beautiful rural village fairly near the English border. This young boy was killed by a driver who had no licence or insurance, who failed to stop and who did not report the incident. In fact, what is even worse, this driver even tried to cover up the crime by having his car re-sprayed.

In this Chamber, we do not play guessing games, so I will not break that convention by playing one today and I will not ask hon. Members to guess the length of that driver’s sentence. The answer will, I think, shock many people—it was a pathetic 22 months, which was at the very top end of the scale of what was possible. If that driver could have been charged with death by dangerous driving, the maximum sentence would have been 14 years. However, under the law as it stands, being uninsured and unlicensed is not enough to qualify as dangerous. I repeat: if someone takes to the roads with no licence and no insurance, kills a child and flees the scene, that does not qualify as dangerous driving. That is quite simply preposterous and it must change. [Interruption.]

The “Justice for Robert” petition to back longer sentences for that crime was signed by 1,300 people. [Interruption.] I agree with them totally, and it is on their behalf and on behalf of other people affected by this appalling crime that I call on the Government to go further in this area and change the law. [Interruption.]

[Mark Hendrick]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench to be chatting, laughing and joking between them while one of my hon. Friends is discussing serious cases where people have been killed on our roads?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Ministers were listening. Who knows, they might even have been discussing the case. We should not make judgments about others; otherwise we would end up with such points going around the Chamber. I am sure that everyone takes seriously the views of Members of all parties when they are speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), although I have to say that I must have listened to a different Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) did an excellent job of setting out exactly what is in the Queen’s Speech for business. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that it contains provisions on reform of the banks, which we need to ensure stability, on cutting red tape, on the Green investment bank, and on allowing renewable development to continue. I should also point out that the Government have already introduced measures on youth unemployment through the youth contract and apprenticeships, so they are not sitting on their hands doing nothing as he was suggesting.

I want to focus on the proposals relating to home affairs and justice issues. First, however, let me say a couple of things about House of Lords reform, to which all parties made a commitment in their manifestos. I assume that all of them are unhappy with a scenario in which we have 92 hereditary peers and peers who are appointed by party leaders making decisions about our legislation. I hope, therefore, that all Members will want to facilitate a process that enables us to come to a rapid conclusion on this and that these proceedings will not be delayed as a result of actions by Liberal Democrat Members.

[Mark Hendrick]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Queen’s Speech is a joke, but not a very funny one. Thankfully, we all know that the Queen did not write it, although she had the unpleasant task of having to read it out yesterday in the House of Lords.

I will say a little about policing in Lancashire. As many people will know, Lancashire has the best police force in the country—it has been independently assessed as the best of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is no longer in his place but has been replaced by one of his Lib Dem ministerial colleagues, now the only Lib Dem Member in the Chamber, which shows what respect the Lib Dems have for the coalition speech that the Queen delivered. If we look at the police force in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we will see that it will lose 1,486 police officers, or 1,907 police staff overall, including front-line officers, so I was quite surprised that the first thing he talked about in his speech was House of Lords reform. Given the fact that his constituents are losing so many police officers, I am sure that they will be horrified that their parliamentary spokesperson is putting House of Lords reform at the top of his agenda. That just shows how out of touch the Liberal Democrats are. When I go into my local pub or club, my steward and my constituents do not come up to me and say, “What we really need, Mark, is House of Lords reform.” They are talking about crime on the streets, antisocial behaviour and the day-to-day problems they have to deal with.

In talking of day-to-day problems that people have to deal with, and why we need the police to deal with them, I should point out that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), is losing only 65 front-line officers in his constituency. I am sure that in leafy Cambridgeshire the public will not miss 65 police officers, but they will miss 550 police officers in my constituency, and they will miss almost 1,500 police officers in Carshalton and Wallington. I know that the Minister’s constituency has a bit of trouble now and then when Huntingdon Life Sciences is attacked and a few extra police officers have to be drafted in, but the seriousness of these cuts is lost on some Government Members.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) says that Opposition Members accuse the Government of not being sympathetic to the lives that people face or to the victims of crime. I am sure that they are sympathetic, but we are talking about crime on a far bigger scale in many of our inner cities and in many parts of the country. That needs far bigger and more effective police forces that have to be able to deal with it.

We know that things are getting bad when the police themselves take to the streets to go on marches. There is a demonstration today in which thousands and thousands of police officers have descended on London, including officers from my constabulary in Lancashire, to protest about the 20% cuts in policing. Members of this House, as well as families and communities up and down the country, will be supporting them.

Fairly recently I met representatives of the Lancashire Police Federation, and they reminded me of a meeting I had with them four or five years ago, when Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary and they complained about changes to their working arrangements and pensions that took place under the previous Labour Government. When I met them a couple of months ago over a very nice lunch in Preston, they said, “Bring back Jacqui Smith”, but I am afraid that they do not have that option at the moment. What they are left with is a Home Secretary who basically does not give a toss—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That is unparliamentary language. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that terminology.

[Mark Hendrick]

I withdraw the comment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should use a more appropriate expression and say that the Home Secretary does not care as much as she should do.

As I have said, Lancashire constabulary is the best of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. Let us look at the sort of money that is being withdrawn by central Government. In real terms—cumulative cash terms—in 2011-12 there was a 6% cut, in 2012-13 there will be a 13% cut, in 2013-14 there will be a 17% cut, and in 2014-15 there will be the magic 20% cut that police forces up and down the country are facing.

The Government base their predictions on those of the Office for Budget Responsibility and predict that council tax will increase by 3.4% per annum. The OBR might be giving a figure of 3.4% per annum, but the Government are telling local authorities to freeze council tax, as many Tory authorities throughout the country are, so, when authorities look at the money available to them, particularly through the police precept, they find that, if everybody sticks to the Conservative line on freezing council tax, they will not have that 3.4% to include in the budget and, therefore, will have to cut even more from the police budget.

We know that, if councils want an increase of more than 3.5%, they will also have to hold a referendum to get that budget measure through, costing them not only in a referendum, but through the likelihood of losing it. Constituents will not want to pay more for a service that is not as good. The Government have therefore been cynical to say the least in putting forward this estimate of a 3.4% increase in council tax.

If we look at central funding for the Lancashire police force, we find that its income will fall from £220.21 million in 2011-12 to £195.53 million in 2014-15, and that we are going to see funding gaps in the first year of £13.82 million and in the final year of £8.32 million. That is from a very lean starting point for Lancashire constabulary: 28.6% of its back-office budget has gone; 20% of its middle-office budget has gone; and now almost 10% of its front-line budget has gone, despite the Prime Minister indicating that there was no need at all to cut any front-line police.

On the impact, 5,000 police nationally have already gone, and some 550 police officers will go in Lancashire, along with 250 police staff. Lancashire’s record is, however, fantastic. Crime has gone down year on year since 2004; all crime is down by 34%; acquisitive crime is down by 45%; burglary is down by 36%; violent crime is down by 31%; and antisocial behaviour has fallen since April 2009, from 155,000 incidents to 100,000.

The situation is ridiculous. When Labour left office there were record numbers of police officers on the streets, with over 16,500 more than when we took office in 1997. The Government should urgently rethink the scale of police cuts and set out a proper plan to cut crime instead. The Queen’s Speech included nothing about crime, and the Government will rue the day they did nothing about it, because, although their constituents will not feel the cuts in the way that ours do, they will still pay the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am advised that we are looking carefully at the issue, and we would be pleased to engage with the Royal British Legion and others on it.

Our core aim in introducing the Defamation Bill is to reform the law so that it strikes the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. As the points raised illustrate, there is a wide range of views on exactly what that balance should be and how individual issues should be dealt with. We look forward to an extensive and informed debate both here and in the other place as the Bill proceeds.

The draft communications data provisions provide for targeted, practical measures that are essential to enable our law enforcement agencies to keep pace with new technologies, with strong safeguards to protect civil liberties. We can protect the public while continuing to uphold civil liberties in an internet age. As the Home Secretary clearly set out, there will be no single Government database, no real-time monitoring of communications of individuals, and no new powers to intercept e-mails or phone calls of members of the public. That will address the concerns raised by several Members.

My right hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Carshalton and Wallington raised the issue of collection of data. I can assure them that we will be extending the role of the interception of communications commissioner to oversee the collection of communications data by communications service providers, and it will continue to be the Information Commissioner’s role to keep under review the security of information kept up to the end of the 12-month retention period.

Members clearly share views on the scourge of antisocial behaviour, to which several of them referred. Antisocial behaviour is an issue that really matters to the public, and for too many people it remains a nasty fact of everyday life. Despite the years of top-down initiatives and targets handed out by the previous Government, more than 3 million antisocial behaviour incidents are reported to the police each year and many are not reported at all. That is why this Government want a transformation in the way that antisocial behaviour is dealt with, and I thank hon. Members for their useful contributions and interventions. The Government have stripped away the targets that hampered professionals’ ability to crack down on this kind of crime. We will introduce more effective measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, including replacing the bureaucratic and ineffective antisocial behaviour orders, more than half of which are currently being breached at least once.

[Mark Hendrick]

The Minister will be aware that antisocial behaviour in Lancashire has been cut in recent years from 155,000 incidents per year to about 100,000 because of Labour’s measures. What does he think a 20% cut to policing will do to that?