Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 591775, relating to laboratory animals and the Animal Welfare Act.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. This petition closed on 20 January and attracted more than 110,000 signatures, including 139 from my constituency. Leading this debate today fills me with a sense of déjà vu. Just over three months ago, I led a debate in which this House considered two petitions relating to animal testing. One called for all animal testing in the UK to be banned and the other for a phasing out of animal experiments. In that debate, I quoted an early scholar of jurisprudence, Jeremy Bentham, who said,

“Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”

Here I stand again, repeating the very same question that has been brought to the fore by this petition, which calls for legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

To give some background, I must point out that the Animal Welfare Act is 16 years old. Within it is an unnecessary suffering clause, which sets out the criteria for an offence to be committed. It includes the principle that any action—or indeed failure to take action—that results in animal suffering must be against a protected animal. The petition highlights that laboratory animals are not protected by the 2006 Act and are therefore victims of unnecessary suffering.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s intention is to confirm that post our leaving the European Union—when we leave the European Union—such access to justice is available to British citizens.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union—[Interruption.] I speak as a remainer. When that happens, does the Minister agree that the Council of Europe will become an increasingly important interlocutor between this country and the European Union? Will he reiterate this Government’s commitment to staying in the European Court of Human Rights?

[Dr Lee]

Yes, when we leave the European Union, it is important that Britain maintains a strong role in international affairs in terms of its lead on human rights. I remind the House that the original convention on human rights was written by two Britons.

Police and Fire Shared Services

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend enormously on securing this debate. Many of us have been discussing these issues with our police and crime commissioners, police forces and fire services. I certainly have been doing so in Somerset with my MP hat on. I would like to widen it even more. Avon and Somerset police already have a loose arrangement with Wiltshire, but there is certainly interest in sharing back-office IT and admin, which would allow our police officers to stay on the street doing their jobs.

Equally, I recently had a very successful meeting with Somerset fire and rescue service. I urge that we bring the ambulance service into the picture, because it is something of a model case, with the biggest fire service outside London. [Interruption.] Oh my goodness, that is my phone going off. I apologise, Mr Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be short so that other colleagues and Members can speak later.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. The Somerset service is working so well that it has the largest number of retained firemen, who work closely with the ambulance service. It is working exceedingly well and saving a lot of money.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I ask Members to check that their phones are on silent or mute.

[Amanda Milling]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are a number of examples around the country of services that are collaborating. It is not just police and fire; it is fire and ambulance, police and ambulance and all three of the blue-light services. I will come to those points in a little more detail.

On collaboration, I am not alone in posing the question that my hon. Friend asked in her intervention. The concept of greater collaboration between the blue-light services, particularly police and fire, has been the subject of debate for some time, well before I was elected to this place. I read with interest the Knight report, published in May 2013. A number of its key findings relate to this discussion.

As I have said, the number of incidents has decreased by more than 40% in the past decade, while at the time when the report was published, expenditure and firefighting numbers had stayed broadly the same. That suggests scope for reform and efficiencies to better match risk and response. The report also found evidence of a disparity in the amount of money spent per person per year across the different fire authorities, with little to explain those differences and a limited relationship between expenditure and outcomes. There was clear widespread duplication among fire and rescue authorities across England: each had its own management structure, leaders and operational differences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. That remark was made from a sedentary position. If Members want to intervene, I encourage them to stand up.

[Ian Lavery]

I have lost my thread, Mr Pritchard. I was in full flow until I asked people to call me a dinosaur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. We have three speakers and 14 minutes left, so can we have a time limit of four to four and a half minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Parliament, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) on securing a hugely important debate that matters particularly to Lancashire Members; the idea of sharing services to reduce costs will be particularly important there, given changes to the police funding formula. The Minister will not have scope to respond to me on that matter, but I want to thank him for meeting me and a cross-party delegation of Lancashire MPs who expressed concern about potential savings. His Department and officials have supported us every step of the way and have enabled Lancashire MPs to contribute to the continuing consultation to try to protect services.

Blue-light services are under pressure throughout the country because of financial constraints such as those I have mentioned. When MPs talk in the House about blue-light services—police, fire, ambulance, the coastguard and the Mines Rescue Service—they should reflect on the huge contribution that they make. My grandfather patrolled the docks in Bootle in Liverpool during the blitz—a tremendously brave thing to do—while he was in the police service. He put his life at risk every night to try to keep people safe in the city. We had a tragic reminder of the risks yesterday in the same city, at the funeral of PC Phillips at the Anglican Liverpool cathedral, where there were amazing scenes as more than 1,000 police officers lined the streets. I know that the Minister attended, to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House. When we discuss the blue-light services, we must remember that they are like no other part of the public sector. We ask and expect the people in those services to put their lives at risk to keep us safe.

Nevertheless, the new funding environment is here to stay. There must be savings and all services must play their part in helping us to pay down a record deficit. There is an opportunity for blue-light services throughout the country, but particularly in Lancashire, to begin saving by sharing more back-office services, to protect the frontline. When our constituents dial 999 or 101, they really care about whether someone will arrive on their doorstep in the worst of emergencies—or perhaps for a more minor incident if they dialled 101. Will someone arrive to help them? They do not particularly mind whether those people share headquarters or training facilities. We heard a fantastic example from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the sharing of training facilities in Northern Ireland. I support services sharing if, and only if, all the savings are used to maintain investment in and support of officers in all front-line services.

I was involved in running a business before I came to the House, and we had 1,500 employees, who were all fantastic and made a huge contribution. They would have thought it bizarre if we had had five HR, payroll or training departments for our five offices. They would have thought it even more bizarre if I had told them that to maintain the five payroll departments, we would sack people doing the work in the five different offices. That does not work in business, and it should not work in blue-light public services. For too long, there has been a silo mentality, and public services have not wanted to co-operate with each other, because they thought of that as a bit of an attack on their independence. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made some fantastic points, with some momentum. We agree on quite a lot and he made some constructive comments about how we can share services but still maintain independence. I agree that if I phone the fire service I expect someone to turn up in the uniform of a firefighter, not a police officer. We have a special relationship with firefighters, which is to do with the fact that they are independent and not linked to crime fighting. That needs to be maintained.

I want to keep my remarks brief; perhaps I have already gone over the time limit. I just want to say that there is an opportunity, through PCCs, to look at increasing democratic accountability. I outed myself as unable to name everyone on the fire panel in my constituency. I doubt whether many hon. Members could do so for theirs. I can name a few whom I have met in my constituency, but there is an opportunity to increase democratic accountability, and that is why I support the Government’s consultation.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will, because of Standing Orders, have to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.30 pm, so I call Chris Davies, who has 70 seconds.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. My speech goes on a lot longer than 70 seconds, so I shall leave it where it is. I agree with most of what has been said. It is clear that first and foremost our blue-light services must be not buildings or machinery, but people on the frontline. That is what the general public want and what our voters are after, and the Government must give that priority.

In areas such as mine—I represent the largest rural constituency in England and Wales; it is 85 miles long—the reality is that we must have a mix of services. We have first responders; it may be the fire service that responds, doing a marvellous job and saving lives. The crew may not be putting fires out when they do that, but they save lives doing the work of paramedics. They have trained accordingly and keep people alive until the paramedics arrive. There is a need for this crossover, and thank goodness we have it. I will sit down within the 70 seconds, but I want to pay tribute to the blue-light services and to the Government for having the consultation. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) for securing this debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

May I also pay tribute to Mr Berry and Mr Smith for keeping their remarks brief? I am sorry, Mr Davies, that you did not have as much time as I anticipated. I remind newer colleagues in particular that if they want to speak, they have to put their names forward. That allows the Chair to introduce a formal time limit, rather than an informal one, as exampled in the past few moments.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

This may have been a lawful arrest; I do not want to prejudge the police, not knowing the evidence, but what we do know is that up and down the country, not only in the Metropolitan police area, but in other police forces in England and Wales, there are unlawful arrests every single day of the week, and for that the taxpayer has to pay out millions of pounds of compensation every year. What we do not know, because the Home Office has yet to publish those figures and is unprepared to do so thus far, is how much that costs taxpayers. Does the Minister agree that if those figures were published, it might incentivise the police to be a little bit more careful about what is lawful and unlawful?

[Mike Penning]

I think my hon. Friend is trying to drag me into a discussion on whether the arrests were lawful or unlawful. I am not willing to get into that discussion while there is an ongoing police investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for the information and campaigning verve that my hon. Friend has brought to this issue. As he knows, I have been speaking to Action for Children and other bodies that are campaigning on the issue and, as I said, he will have our conclusions in due course.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

17. What his policy is on the role of chaplains in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We strongly support a vibrant and flourishing prison chaplaincy. Chaplaincy teams facilitate religious practice across the faith traditions, providing pastoral care to prisoners and staff, religious teaching and courses. Chaplaincy contributes to the deradicalisation, resettlement and rehabilitation agendas.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the Minister join me in thanking all prison chaplains for the important work they do in restorative and rehabilitative justice? Will he also commit today to write to all prison governors in both the private and public sectors to remind them that the Government are committed to the chaplaincy service and that chaplains should have unfettered access to prisoners?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I know that he takes a considerable interest in this matter. I shall certainly consider including a reference to the chaplaincy in one of our regular communications to governors. He will know that there are in the order of 350 employed prison chaplains and many hundreds more who attend on a sessional basis. I know that they will appreciate his support and that of many other Members of this House.

Prison Education and Welfare Services

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am pleased to have secured this debate on education and welfare services in prisons—an important subject that affects the lives of thousands of prisoners throughout the United Kingdom, where 85,000 people are in prison. According to the Government’s figures, 81,000 are men and just under 4,000 are women. More than half of the UK’s prison population are in their 20s and 30s and therefore likely to have many years of freedom ahead of them upon their release.

In the first instance, prison must be seen as a punishment: a restriction of an individual’s freedom in response to their behaviour. However, it should not be a place that permanently reduces their life chances upon release. Offenders who are ex-offenders should be regarded as ex-offenders; they should be given the chance to move on with their lives and given a second chance. However, for some offenders, whole-of-life prison terms are more than appropriate; others, such as paedophiles and those who cannot be reformed, in my view deserve longer sentences than is currently the case. I hope that the Government will look at that in detail. I also think that tariffs for breaching the Official Secrets Act and acts of treason are far too lenient and might not deter those who would seek to undermine our nation’s national security.

For some offenders, however, prison can be an opportunity for them to change and turn their lives around—there is an opportunity, through education and welfare services, statutory or otherwise, to rehabilitate prisoners and provide them with the knowledge and skills to help them to lead successful and productive lives in their communities upon release. Through education courses, prisoners will be better equipped to find and sustain employment on release, becoming an asset to local communities and the wider economy. Education is still very much an escalator to opportunity and should be a key focus of the Government’s prisons policy. It has been estimated that up to 80% of prisoners have a reading age lower than that of an 11-year-old. That does not bode well for their employment on release or their successful reintegration into local communities.

A large proportion of prison education services are provided by the Government through the offenders’ learning and skills service, as well as through a number of Government-contracted providers. Although welcome, such statutory services tend to focus only on key basic skills such as maths and literacy. Those are of course important, but the training does not usually go beyond level 2, which is equivalent to a GCSE. The courses are highly valuable for prisoners, particularly those from poor educational backgrounds, and the Government deserve credit for increasing prisoner participation in them.

One of the key providers of such courses is A4E, which does some excellent work in helping former prisoners into employment, often bringing potential employers into prisons and giving offenders the chance to demonstrate their skills in a work-like environment. However, there are still areas in which the Government can improve the provision of educational services and make further progress. In particular, the focus on processes and outputs alone, where pressure is put on providers to get prisoners on to and through courses, risks missing those prisoners who require more focused, specialised, bespoke and, in some cases, higher-level teaching experience than the current system provides.

It is also difficult for education providers to draw down funding for courses beyond level 2, which results in a distinct lack of progress for prisoners who come from a stronger educational background. Furthermore, the comparative lack of more engaged learning, including more practical and vocational courses—such as gym courses, as well as workshops and other creative activities—risks alienating individuals who may not be academically minded but nevertheless have other practical skills that could equip them for the outside workplace. That is why the role of charities is important, because it often falls to charities and other external organisations to provide educational services in areas not currently covered by the offenders’ learning and skills service, or OLASS.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and make my usual declaration about my publication on prison reform two years ago. Does he agree that we should be looking into the idea of an academy prison, whereby the whole prison is run by a charity or altruistic institution? The current model is either state or private, whereas in schools we have transformed education by the provision of academies that are outwith the state or private institutions. Surely, the next step for public sector reform of prisons should be the charity not just providing the education within a small segment of a prison, but taking over the whole prison itself.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must have a mixed economy for education provision in the prison estate. He makes an innovative point on the potential for an academy—either an individual academy within an individual prison or an academy with a capital A across the whole of the prison estate. He is of course well versed and experienced on this subject, having written a book entitled “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”, which looked at the subject of literacy, numeracy and education. I applaud his continued commitment to improved education in the prison estate.

I was talking about charities, and the Prisoners Education Trust, for example, funds around 2,000 people each year to study a wide range of courses in subjects and at levels not provided by statutory education services, including Open university degrees and diplomas as well as more practical and vocational courses. The trust does an excellent job in helping thousands of prisoners across the estate, and I pay tribute to its work. Over the past quarter of a century, it has led many prisoners back into successful lives in the community. The Ministry of Justice’s research confirms that prisoners who study are less likely to reoffend, so everyone wins. Other charities involved in such work include the Shannon Trust, the No Way Trust and the Henry Smith Charity—I do not believe that the latter relates to our colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), but I know that he is interested in this subject. They all deserve credit for supplementing other education services within the estate.

Welfare services available to prisoners, whether counselling, faith-based or pastoral services, such as the work of the prison chaplaincy, all make for better prisons and help reduce reoffending rates on release. Once again, the role of charities makes an invaluable impact on the lives and welfare of prisoners. In particular, the Prison Fellowship does excellent work in support of prisoners to navigate their way through a host of different programmes and initiatives. It also supports those who have little or no social or family network to support them in or out of prison. Through its excellent victim awareness programme, the Prison Fellowship teaches the principles of restorative justice, by giving prisoners the opportunity to explore the effects of crimes on victims, offenders and the community, as well as to take responsibility for their own actions and crimes.

On restorative justice, the Government should look again at the moneys provided to the police and crime commissioners for that type of justice work. I do not think that the majority of PCCs are best placed to spend those justice funds. My view is that organisations such as the Prison Fellowship and others should be able to apply for direct funding from the Ministry of Justice. I hope that the Minister will consider that again and will respond when winding up.

Other charities, such as Time for Families, also do good work, including running relationship courses in prisons. The staff and volunteers, like those of so many other charities, do so much for so many, and I pay tribute to all those who do such work. I also pay tribute to all prison officer staff and volunteers who work within the prison estate, most with professionalism and commitment, in both the public and private sectors and—who knows in the future?—in some third-way academy; I hope so.

The prison chaplaincy is the backbone of the prison welfare and pastoral services provided, with that care playing a vital role in the rehabilitation process, and helping prisoners with many of the challenges that they face.

Mr Dobbin, with your permission, I would like to be reminded when there is one minute left for me to speak. That would be very helpful.

For those prisoners of faith, the prison chaplaincy provides solace, confidentiality and somewhere for them to go to practise their religion. I pay tribute to all those who offer spiritual and pastoral counselling to prisoners and staff. None the less, some recent concerns have been expressed about accessibility to chaplaincy services. In a recent submission to the Select Committee on Justice, the Caritas Social Action Network in collaboration with the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales raised a number of concerns about access to religious services for prisoners. Some of that has resulted from changes in the organisation of the prison day, with the bishops citing the shortening of the prison day. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that claim, given the vital role, which I know he and the Government recognise, of the work chaplains do in the prison service.

I highlight the excellent Listener scheme established within prisons by the Samaritans. I recently tabled a written parliamentary question on the subject. The scheme helps to support hundreds of prisoners and can help reduce self-harming. Prisoners are trained by the Samaritans and other prisoners come to that prisoner for help, support and guidance. I hope that the Minister will ensure that all prison governors and staff are made fully aware of the Government’s support for this scheme, since, again, everyone benefits.

I turn briefly to maternity services and women in prison. My view is that women with very young children should be jailed only for serious offences. I think that pregnant prisoners as far as practicable should always give birth in NHS hospitals and stay in hospital for as long as possible wherever needed. The Government need to publish annual official figures on the number of pregnant women in prisons and the number of mothers and babies passing through the prisons estate each year. Those figures are currently not published. Bespoke policies cannot surely be made without sufficient detail and empirical data and evidence.

There are estimates that more than 600 women receive antenatal care in prisons each year, with more than 100 women actually giving birth during their sentences. Can the Minister confirm that the female prison population is likely to rise? If he thinks that is the case on projections, will the 80 mother-and-baby places in units in England—and other places—spread between seven establishments be sufficient to meet future demand? Does he think that such units are the right environment for babies to be born?

I am aware that in 2000 the prison service and the NHS entered into a formal contract to provide prisoners with the same standard of midwifery care as that provided elsewhere in the community, and rightly so. Is the Minister content that that contract is providing the health care that mothers and babies require?

Can the Minister confirm on the record that, though the practice was outlawed since 1996, mothers are no longer in every case shackled while in labour or giving birth? The Government need to do more to ensure that standards of antenatal care are far more uniform across the prison estate—high levels of care, not a lowering of standards of care.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. You have one minute left for your speech.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful, Mr Dobbin. I would like to thank the Maternity Alliance for the work that it does in relation to mothers and babies in prison.

The Government are doing some excellent things to ensure that education and welfare services are available in prisons, and that work is admirably supplemented by the excellent work of numerous charities, some of which I have referred to today. However, I hope that more progress can be made, particularly in relation to uniformity of access and standards.

Changes of policy or process within individual prisons or across the whole prison estate should not lead to a lowest-common-denominator approach. Those who occupy prisons are individuals who have done wrong to society. However, that does not mean that they should be written off. Yes, prison should be a place of punishment, but also a place of rehabilitation, a weaning off dependency and a place of restorative justice for those who have open minds and hearts. The prison service should be a helping hand in that process, not a deterrent or an unwitting roadblock. The prison service works best in a collaborative process.

Most prisoners will return to the outside world and it is in large part the responsibility of this Government to ensure that policies are advanced that help equip prisoners for a fresh start and a new life on their release, going on to lead productive and fruitful lives for themselves and for wider society.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Dobbin. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate and on the way he has set out his case. I agree with a great deal of what he has said. He is entirely right that the first thing the public expect is that sentencing is carried out in a robust and proper manner and that, where tough sentences are appropriate, they are handed out.

My hon. Friend will know that the Government are acting on that expectation in relation to legislation currently passing through Parliament. We will, for example, no longer have automatic release for terrorists and those who have committed child rape offences. I think that he and many others will welcome that.

My hon. Friend is right that prison should not simply be a place of punishment, but also an opportunity to turn lives around. He will recognise the Government’s clear focus on reducing reoffending. A large part of that relies on rehabilitation that takes places during custody as well as that which may take place later.

My hon. Friend talked about education and skills, and again he is right that that is hugely important. We recognise the important role that skills and employment can have in reducing reoffending. We are committed to creating a more effective system for helping prisoners develop the skills required for sustainable employment. I am especially concerned, as I know that my hon. Friend will be, about the number of prisoners who have poor literacy and numeracy. We know that such skills are essential for life and work and without them any individual is disadvantaged in the job market. For that reason, from August this year we are introducing mandatory assessment of learning needs for all prisoners on reception. This will help to ensure that those with the greatest need do not slip through the net. Of course, education is not mandatory for anyone over 18. However, we hope that our revised incentives and earned privileges scheme and more innovative and engaging approaches will secure the involvement of those adult prisoners.

My hon. Friend may know that we have piloted the use of the Army’s approach to intensive maths and English and have found that to be effective with prisoners. We intend to roll this out further, particularly for those serving short sentences.

[Mark Pritchard]

Just for the record and for clarity—for my slowness—first, is the Minister saying that that will be offered to all new prisoners on reception? Secondly, how will that assessment be made?

[Jeremy Wright]

The assessment should apply to all prisoners, so that we understand what someone’s learning needs might be. As I have said, it is difficult to compel anyone above the age of 18 to engage in any education courses, but it is important that we understand what a prisoner’s learning needs are when they arrive in custody. If someone has significant learning needs, it is right to give them every incentive and encouragement to address those needs, so that they can start to make their way in the world in a legitimate way, just as my hon. Friend described, when they leave custody.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of charities that have an important part to play in this regard. He is right about that. He mentioned the Prisoners Education Trust, and I support what he said about it. He is right to mention the Shannon Trust in particular, given that we are discussing literacy among prisoners; it does good work, as he knows, through the “Toe by Toe” programme, which enables prisoners to learn to read outside a classroom setting.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that we have to focus on vocational training. Our offender learning strategy concentrates on preparation for employment, as we know that having a job when leaving prison can reduce reoffending. Vocational training, based on labour market intelligence, particularly in the year before release, will remain a priority especially in the new resettlement prisons. More broadly, I want to ensure that a core of employers is in place to offer employment opportunities to offenders and ex-offenders, in particular through the Employers Forum for Reducing Re-offending, chaired by James Timpson.

I am fully aware, as my hon. Friend is, that many prisoners have experienced a lifetime of social deprivation and face more significant barriers to obtaining employment than the average jobseeker and that prison leavers spend longer on benefits than other new jobseeker’s allowance claimants. For this reason, from March 2012 we introduced a change so that all prison leavers are immediately mandated to the Work programme if they make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance in prison or within 13 weeks of release. This is intended to ensure that newly released offenders have the support that they need to find and stay in work.

Of course, work after prison is an important factor, but work in prison is important, too. Work in prison can prepare prisoners to take up opportunities outside. Too many prisoners are able to pass their time in prison in a state of enforced idleness, with little or no constructive activity. We want prisons in England and Wales to become places of meaningful work and training, where many more prisoners work for up to 40 hours a week, and possibly beyond. We have had considerable success in increasing the number of hours worked in our prisons since 2010.

We want more prisoners to undertake challenging work, within the discipline of regular working hours, which will also help them develop the skills that they need to gain employment, to reform and, ultimately, to turn away from crime.

Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend—he is also an old friend—is entirely right. I will elaborate in some detail on some of those cases in a moment.

The federation chose a very good person to write the report. David Normington, a distinguished ex-permanent secretary at the Home Office, is a classic Whitehall mandarin. If anything, he is more tempted than most to be careful and sober in his language, and to pull his punches in his descriptions or at least to mitigate them. However, it is in the best interests of police officers across the country that we reveal very clearly, and perhaps in starker detail than Normington did, the extent to which the federation has failed.

Even in its sober language, the Normington report was, as my hon. Friend intimates, utterly damning of the federation’s performance. It made 36 recommendations, focusing on returning professionalism, democracy and efficiency to the Police Federation. To fully understand the extent of the problem, we should examine a number of areas where the need for reform is particularly apparent.

It is a matter of great concern that the Police Federation is as profligate as it appears to be. There are numerous examples of that. It spent £26 million building its Leatherhead headquarters. Frankly, that is extravagant enough to do justice to one of the London merchant banks at the height of the City excesses. The headquarters have a hotel, a bar, an indoor swimming pool and 11 grace and favour apartments. Even more outrageous is that, to pay for the extravagant cost, members’ subscription fees had to be raised by 23%. The federation’s officers, with their salaries still paid by their respective forces, receive salary enhancements of up to £25,000 from the federation. They are given those enhancements for doing what is, after all, an easier job than being on the cold streets of Britain on the night shift: sitting in their luxury headquarters, instead of performing public duties. I have been told that full-time federation officers have free use of the grace and favour flats and live on company credit cards. The purchase of large quantities of food and alcohol on those cards is apparently not uncommon.

To put a number on this, the accounts show a provision of £2 million in a tax dispute with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. As I understand it, if that provision is to meet any tax liability, at a tax rate of 40%, that means that £5 million of claims have been made on perks, and perhaps unjustifiably claimed as a proper expense. That is astonishing.

In the newspapers only a couple of days ago a police widow—herself a serving police constable, if the report was right—said that federation officials treated memorial services, those most important and high-gravitas of occasions,

“like a drunken jolly, getting drunk on federation credit cards. Their drunken excess upsets families every year”,

so this is not an exception. I heard similar allegations about the behaviour of federation officials at conferences, at which bar bills of hundreds of pounds were again being charged to federation credit cards.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the money might be better spent restoring the damaged national police memorial, on the Mall, which remains broken and damaged, and that that would be a fitting tribute to the brave and dedicated police officers who form the majority?

[Mr Davis]

That is an extremely imaginative suggestion. I have my own ideas about what should happen with the money, but my hon. Friend’s idea should be taken into account.

In making these assertions, I have largely depended on whistleblowers—people who have bravely come forward, shocked at what they have seen—but police whistleblowers are particularly at risk and so are loth to enter the public domain, which makes it hard to check what they have said. As a result, I called on the federation to publish its expense accounts and live up to generally expected standards of transparency. I did this so that I could confirm or deny whether these claims were correct. As far as I am aware, the federation has not published these expense and credit card accounts, which leads me to believe that the whistleblowers are right.

It is up to the federation’s members to say whether they consider this profligacy acceptable, because mostly—but not entirely—it is their money, but they cannot make that judgment unless they know exactly what is being done in their name with their money. So that is another reason to have total transparency in these accounts. Yet another reason concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who as Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims represents the Home Office on the Front Bench today. We put taxpayers’ money into the federation—it is there properly to perform a function we want performed—so it might be the case that taxpayers’ money is being wasted at these conferences.

The federation appears to have a problem with transparency. It is telling that it failed to answer even Sir David Normington’s requests concerning the so-called No. 2 accounts used by the various branches. This money comes from selling insurance and then keeping a rake-off or commission, but so far the federation has not been willing or able to provide the information that Normington asked for. I understand that this probably accounts for £35 million of assets just sitting around the country. Again, this is money that belongs to serving police officers, not the organisation.

Contrary to the federation’s claims earlier this week, the full details of the 11 grace and favour apartments are not published in its accounts. I will not spend much time on this, but, to save colleagues time looking it up, I recommend they read note 3 of the federation’s accounts. It is the only reference to the apartments, but it does not contain what I would recognise as details telling us that these are grace and favour apartments used for the benefit of federation officers, with or without the approval of its members. It is clear that the federation does not know what transparency means, but it can only restore trust in itself if it imposes transparency on all its operations as a matter of urgency.

The federation’s use of funds raises another matter. It has formidable financial muscle. I guess its total assets come to about £70 million, the majority coming from subscription fees, but some from the No. 2 accounts. The last set of audited accounts showed the federation with a surplus, over and above all its costs and profligacy, of £3.5 million per annum.

In addition, we see in the costs that about £10 million was spent on administration, including the profligacies that I talked about. Most astonishingly, £8 million every single year was spent on legal actions. Furthermore, there are provisions against the loss of certain active legal cases—in one case, for up to £1 million. Other such provisions are for £350,000 or £450,000.

Let us understand something. The right hon. Member for Tottenham is here and will well understand that sometimes there are good reasons for the federation to act vigorously on behalf of its members. Big legal and individual interests will be in play in the Duggan case, and in such cases it is entirely proper that provisions should be made. I do not in any way criticise that element of legal defence, although I have to say that it should come about through an insurance function rather than through the discretion of a Fed rep. Never mind.

Such legal action is justifiable, but on many occasions aggressive litigation should not be carried out against those bringing complaints against the police. Chris Mullin, the distinguished predecessor of the Home Affairs Committee Chairman, has previously said that although most unions will not act on behalf of a member who is clearly in the wrong, the federation has a long track record of defending the indefensible and will gleefully launch claims against the victims of crime.

There are two recent examples of the federation’s appetite for litigation. PC Kelly Jones sued a burglary victim after she tripped on a kerb outside his garage and PC Richard Seymour sued another burglary victim after falling over a drain on his property. In both instances, it was the Police Federation that assisted in progressing the claims, despite the pleading of senior officers that such claims were detrimental to the image of the police force. This is based on press reportage, so I cannot be sure of it, but the federation has been accused of pressuring PC Kelly Jones into making her claim when she had no desire to do so. I hear from other whistleblowers that it is not uncommon for federation members to be actively encouraged to make claims that Members might find inappropriate. A particular concern—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I am a little concerned at the number of cases in which someone criticises a serving police officer and ends up being served with a legal notice or threatened with legal proceedings as a result of raising issues of legitimate concern. The Select Committee inquiry will want to look at such cases.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and his family must have been through a terrible ordeal. It is time to draw a line and move on, and to think about how we can reform the structure, now that the personal issues have been resolved and people have gone to jail or faced misconduct hearings.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

I will give way, but this will be the last time, because I am mindful of what Madam Deputy Speaker has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned moving on. Does he agree that the fact that carefully placed stories and leaks have found their way into national newspapers ahead of today’s debate does not help to restore public trust in the police service—particularly the Metropolitan police service? It is time to move on, and it is time for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to get a grip of his officers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the commissioner ought to have learned from Leveson, and from his previous mistakes in dealing with some parts of the media?

[Keith Vaz]

Of course I deplore leaks, but we have a free press. And of course it is important that everyone should learn the lessons.

Let me turn to the subject of the debate, the reform of the Police Federation. The Normington report is pretty scathing in its criticism of the federation. It says that it should be changed “from top to bottom”, and talks about the present crisis being the result of strategic failures. Sir David Normington also found that 91% of federation members wanted the organisation to change, so this is not a case of Parliament dictating to the federation and telling it what it should do. I am sure we would all want to step away from doing that. The members themselves are saying that they want change.

We need to ensure that the report’s recommendations are implemented by the current leadership of the federation. I pay tribute to Steve Williams, Steve White and Ian Rennie, the chair, vice-chair and general secretary of the organisation. It was Steve Williams who set up the Normington inquiry; we would not have had an inquiry, had the chairman not decided to do that. I also welcome the fact that they told the Select Committee that they intended to implement every one of Sir David’s recommendations. Our inquiry will commence shortly, and I hope that we will be able to look at the length of time it will take to implement them.

I see that another member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is in his place. There were two things that caused the Committee some concern. One was the lack of knowledge about the No. 2 accounts that are being held across all the regions, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned. No one knows the figures involved. I would have thought that the chairman of an organisation as important as the Police Federation would know how much money it was holding locally. He told the Committee that he had written to every regional chairperson to ask for that information, and I hope that they will provide it. If the leadership of the federation is to succeed in implementing the Normington report, as we want it to, it must have that information.

The second issue that struck me and other members of the Committee was the fact that even Steve Williams did not know how many members the federation had, because the database was not up to date. That is also a matter of concern. Surely an organisation that speaks on behalf of thousands of police officers ought to have the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of every single member. That information is kept on a regional basis by the regional chairs and committees, but it is not passed on to the national headquarters, even though the national leadership has to speak on behalf of the federation. I hope that those two important issues will be resolved.

The leadership issue is an important one. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned the need for effective leadership earlier. I want to pay tribute to Paul McKeever, who sadly died at the end of last year. He was a splendid leader of the Police Federation. However, we can have the best leaders in the world, but if the structures are not right, we will not be able to implement change. The Normington report is about changing the structure of the federation, and I think we all agree that it has to change. The federation must also be open and transparent—not necessarily to Parliament, although I would love that to happen. It must be open and transparent to its members. In the end, we are all parts of organisations whose leaderships need to respond to the members, but the members also need to respond when leadership is shown.

I shall end by outlining some of the issues that I hope the Select Committee will look into. These are not agreed terms of reference—those will be agreed at the next meeting—but they are the elements that I think we need to look at. We need to look at the federation’s spending and its use of public money; the contents and usage of the reserves and the federation’s No. 2 accounts; the use of members’ subscriptions by representatives; and the leadership of the federation at national and regional level, including the elections; the current membership and ensuring that the Police Federation’s communications with all members are robust; and ensuring there is co-operation between regional and national boards. We do need to hear from some of the people who work for the federation and have made statements in the public domain—we would like to hear from them at Home Affairs Committee hearings.

Although the Normington report is damning—no organisation would like to read such a report about the way in which it conducts its business—I have confidence that the leadership is going to implement what Normington has said, because it has told the Committee that that is what it wants to do. The role of the Home Affairs Committee is to monitor that and make sure that those good words are translated into good deeds, for the benefit of the federation’s members and the country as a whole.

Interpreting and Translation Services

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which is of great concern to the Public Accounts Committee. We seem to have a number of Government Departments that—I suppose it is belt and braces—are making the outsourcing, or contracting-out process, so complicated that now only four or five companies can win the bid. The whole job is how a bid is won and not what the service is, because frequently the people who win the bids do not do the work. Eddie Stobart will not be providing legal aid; its expertise is winning a Government bid. That is the almost farcical situation that we have now got into. The Ministry needs to learn the lessons from that process, particularly as it seems to be about to do some very similar things on a much bigger scale.

One of the other issues that we have—we use the expression on our Committee “following the public pound” —is that the more this type of thing happens, the less access the National Audit Office has to the people who are doing the work. If the services are run by the Department, the NAO can be all over them, but typically, the contracts do not provide transparency or access, so our auditors are unable to get into the key providers.

In summary, the Minister needs to convince us about the lessons learnt, and about what improvement actions will be taken. I feel—not my Committee but I, personally—that a lot of scrutiny by a lot of people should take place before we walk into the same trap again, and I fear that the Public Accounts Committee may have a lot more work coming down the road towards it.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call John Mann, to be helpful, I just say that I intend to start the wind-ups at 2.30 pm.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In three minutes, I will summarise my concerns for the Minister and the Chamber. I used to own a large interpreting company, and I looked at this form of interpreting and whether, even on a micro scale, it was possible to break into that market. It is not, because it is not possible to manage quality control. With other forms of interpreting, a range of techniques can be used; anyone can work through what the control mechanisms on quality should be, if they know what they are about. When it comes to this form of interpreting, that is not possible. Capita—or any other large conglomerate—cannot possibly manage quality. By definition, it does not know what the quality is, because it cannot employ the people who know what the quality is. I do not have the time to go through how techniques to do that can be devised for other forms of interpreting, but that is how I grew my business, and I grew it to a very large one.

This is nonsense, regardless of Capita, and we know how bad Capita is from the shambles that it made of the miners’ compensation scheme, when, again, it did not have the managerial experience. That was something that could have been managed, in theory, but it was hopeless. Managing quality cannot be done by a large corporate of that scale; it is not simply about Capita.

Also, the real flexibility needed in providing these services involves knowing the people because, in essence, there is a trade-off—a negotiation. The employer will say, “I desperately need you tomorrow, because we suddenly have this case”—or this prisoner, or whatever else—“and you have to do it, because I have no other option. X, Y and Z are not available; you will have to cancel your hospital appointment and do it.” That trade-off in the real world, with real people, works. Trying to put a conglomerate in charge never works, and that is why, even on a small-town basis, my company decided that it was not worth approaching Government to suggest that we attempt to run part of the system and contract in the interpreters. It is not possible, aside from the other issues of whether a company is any good or not.

That is the fundamental issue that the Ministry of Justice and the Minister need to address. They do not know what they are talking about, and they have created this system. Whoever runs it, it will not work, and it cannot work. Even if it continued on a mediocre basis, quality cannot be assured—ever. That is a fundamental problem for British justice, and it is one that the Minister needs to address. [Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the public that we do not allow clapping in Westminster Hall.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

You have ruined the round of applause at the end of my speech, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

If the Minister did not know at the beginning of the debate how important this issue was, she will now, from the quality of the debate and from the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including from very senior Members of the House; and whereas it is right to say that she did not preside over the inauguration of what the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), has called a shambles, she has been defending that shambles since she was appointed, so she does need to give some clear and full answers today.

Included in the contribution from the Chair of the Select Committee was the worrying information, which is in the report, that there was interference with the inquiry by the Ministry of Justice to prevent the fullest account of what has happened coming to light. Perhaps the Minister would like to address that and say whether she wishes to see that there is no repetition of it in the future. It is difficult not to conclude that the reason for it was that the Ministry did not want the full facts of the contract to emerge. I am delighted to hear that this is not the end of the matter for the Select Committee, because it not only has severe implications, as many hon. Members have said, for the quality and the standard of justice in our courts, but it has implications for the Ministry of Justice’s generally shambolic tendering processes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said that in his experience, and looking at the three substantial reports from the NAO, the Justice Committee and the PAC, he had rarely seen such an indictment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) quoted some, but only some, of the examples of failure. The dossier from which he was reading is only one of several dossiers about hundreds of individual cases that have been prepared. I was grateful for those contributions, and grateful also for the contributions from the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), and for Redcar (Ian Swales), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who brought to the debate their own experience, either from their private life or from the Committees on which they have served.

A number of Members wanted to take part in the debate, and what their contributions come to, in summation, is the anatomy of a disaster. The Ministry set out to save relatively small amounts of money; I shall explain why I use that phrase. Some Members—certainly Members on the PAC—will have seen the interrogation by the Chair of the PAC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), of the senior responsible officer, who had not read the report and was not aware of the fact that when a £42 million contract was let to ALS, it was subject to a £1 million limit. He had not read that because he thought that it was de minimis and below his estimable gaze, and things went from bad to worse in that interrogation.

There appears to have been no assessment of the risk in this case. There has been contempt for the way in which professional interpreters should be dealt with. I am very grateful for the way in which professional interpreters have assisted us. I particularly mention Geoffrey Buckingham of the Association of Police and Court Interpreters, but I am also referring to many of the organisations that make up Professional Interpreters for Justice. They have been prepared to brief hon. Members at length on what is going wrong in our courts every day. The only party that appears not to wish to listen to that is the Ministry of Justice, which is why we have had the meltdown in our courts during the past 18 months.

Let me deal first with the issue of costs. I do not expect to get an answer from the Minister on costs, although many hon. Members have asked her about them. I have been trying to get answers to these questions for months through parliamentary questions and Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Let me tell Members what my latest inquiries have gained me. I asked the Ministry to provide the information on wasted costs in courts, and it said that it would not do that, although it could, because it was too expensive. I am appealing that decision, because it seems to me that the Ministry could simply contact each court and ask it to supply that information as raw data, and my office could collate that. Failing that, I asked whether the Ministry would provide me with the e-mail addresses of the country’s courts, so that I could undertake the exercise myself, and it said, wrongly, that that information was available publicly. It is not available publicly, so I am appealing that as well. The fact that the response to one of those inquiries was addressed to Mr Safranov and the other one was unopenable and caused my computer to crash only confirms that the Ministry is either unable or unwilling to provide the information because it knows how devastating it is likely to be.

What we do know—these are in part estimates but also in part statistics—is that about 50% of the requirement for interpreters is being fulfilled through the Capita contract. We know that after 500 days, the alternative system—courts finding their own interpreters—is still in effect. We know that whereas the Ministry claims that from a 58% starting point, Capita’s performance has got better, which is not much of a claim, in fact it got worse again from the middle of last year—it does not acknowledge that. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, gave the figures for the trials that have been aborted—more than 600 in the magistrates court and more than 30 in the Crown court over that period.

Those are appalling figures, but it should not be up to any Member of the House to go away and find out that information. That information should be made available, and if the Minister does not have it available, perhaps she could undertake today to give a clear answer about the costs of the failure of the ALS-Capita contract. They include, of course, not only the costs from wasted court time, but the costs from unnecessary remand, the costs to the Crown Prosecution Service and the costs to the Prison Service.

In relation to the impact, I will not read out a great swathe of examples from the dossiers that have been prepared, but they range from the hugely serious to the almost comic. Examples include interpreters who cannot translate the word “guilty”; an attempted murder case in which the interpreter had received no training and did not appreciate the need to translate everything; an interpreter who chatted to witnesses about the case, causing a mistrial after 12 days; and a Crown court trial that was postponed because there was no rare language interpreter, the rare language being Polish—the second most commonly spoken language in the UK. This is going on now.

There was the very serious quadruple murder case at Nottingham Crown court last month. The BBC report stated:

“The failure of an interpreter to show up for a murder suspect’s court appearance has been described as a ‘complete disgrace’ by a judge…No Mandarin interpreter was available, and Nottingham Crown Court heard it was ‘not worthwhile’ for one to turn up”—

according to Capita—

“as they would ‘not make enough money’.”

That was described by the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) as the service being “out of control”. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with her colleague’s view on that matter. A murder case is going on today at Birmingham Crown court for which no Capita interpreter—certainly at the time when I was briefed, early this morning—had turned up, and that case is therefore also in jeopardy.

I do not think that I have to elucidate for Members at this debate how serious these matters are, not just in terms of cost but in terms of the administration and execution of justice. I am not being pompous in saying that these matters go not just to the heart of the Administration, but to the heart of justice itself.

I have with me the translation of an article from Lithuanian, and because it was done by someone on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, it is certified and I trust it as a translation. It is from a Lithuanian website and is telling people about the interpreting service in this country. It quotes a Lithuanian interpreter in the UK as saying this about dealing with clients:

“We just advise them to tell the truth about how everything happened. For example, how and where they went to steal”.

The most fundamental part of an interpreter’s job is not to interfere in the process of justice—not to do the solicitor’s or the barrister’s job and certainly not to give the client legal advice or advice on how to conduct themselves, yet that appears to be the way in which these matters are routinely conducted.

In the few moments left to me, I would like to deal with where we go next. I do not think that the case against this contract has to be made any further; I think that we have to say, “Where do we go now?”

The MOJ is in a parlous state, in terms of letting contracts; its complete reliance on payment by results; what it is doing with the probation service; and what it is threatening to do with the privatisation of the entire Courts Service. I read in the technical press this week that a £300 million MOJ desktop and laptop support contract has been postponed, reportedly after the four most serious contenders had already spent millions bidding. That is the computer contract for the entire court, prison and probation system, which has been in planning for some years and which has now simply been pulled. We do not know why; perhaps the Minister will tell us. The point is that there is no coherence to the contract letting process in the MOJ and the contract is perhaps the clearest example of it. It is also one of the smallest contracts that it has let, and I fear for what may now happen.

So what should now happen? First, the Government need to stop being in denial about the failure of the contract. They need to stop saying that there has been a dramatic improvement when the situation is getting worse. They need to stop misrepresenting what they say about the view of professional interpreters. In their response to the Select Committee, they claimed that the slight amelioration of conditions was something that had been welcomed. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is clear in the minutes of the meetings between the Minister, officials and interpreters that the terms being offered do nothing to meet the concerns of the professional interpreters or to adequately compensate them. Until the Minister realises that and begins to address that matter, the contract will continue to fail.

What interpreters want is the reinstatement of the national agreement; proper—not excessive, but fair—remuneration and conditions of service; legislation to protect the title of registered public service interpreter, so that there will no longer be the types of extraordinary cases that we have heard examples of this afternoon; and to work with the Government to establish a regulatory professional body that is robust and rigorous in its approach, enabling interpreters to provide quality interpreting services to public bodies. They do not seem extreme or unreasonable claims or ambitions.

There is a break clause in the contract. The Government could—and should—act now to suspend while they determine how they can properly address the concerns raised. In my opinion, there is now sufficient evidence that the contract with Capita should not continue.

I will stop now, because I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to all the points that have been raised. She is a courteous Minister, but she tends to read from her civil servants’ brief, rather than answering the points raised in debate. As we have a full house today and interpreters are present who have come to hear the Government’s current stance, I hope we will hear about some progress and movement towards a fair deal for interpreters, which is important, because they are professional people whose livelihoods are at stake, and that we can have within the courts of England and Wales what we used to take for granted. Certainly when I was in practice, I would take it for granted that interpreters would be competent, efficient, present, and able to discharge their duties.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Minister, as is convention, I intend to call the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to make some concluding remarks for two or three minutes, if he wishes to do so, before the end of this debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The principal consideration is to take a decision and present it to the House. I am trying to shoot down some of the fanciful ideas that have been expressed. I understand the real concern about this: most of the House would have preferred not to change at all the existing ban on prisoners voting, but doing nothing—the previous Government’s position—and allowing solicitors to go running around prisons signing up prisoners to get compensation for having their civil liberties denied is piling up quite a bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers will very soon resolve any uncertainty.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

But is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government’s policy? Currently, all Members of Parliament represent all prisoners living in prisons within their constituency, yet the Secretary of State has said that they will be represented by Members of the constituencies where they were last registered. That contradiction needs to be resolved if representation of prisoners by prisoners is to be taken seriously.

[Mr Clarke]

I think there is some confusion in the House about the convention that applies, which both I and my hon. Friend should resolve—although it is not my responsibility to resolve it. I take the view that I represent my constituents when they are in prison wherever it is that they are imprisoned, but I know that other MPs take the view that they represent every resident of a prison in their constituency. Perhaps we should resolve the parliamentary conventions on this matter at the same time as we have a look at which prisoners might have voting rights.

Police (Public Trust)

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Pritchard]

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

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

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Since there is a Division in the House, I must suspend this sitting. We are running behind time already, so I suspend the sitting for a maximum of 15 minutes, but I give fair warning to all Members that if the two Front-Bench spokesmen and the initiator of the debate, Mark Pritchard, are back before then, I will start as soon as the three of them are back in their places.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mark Pritchard]

There should be no special treatment for police officers; they are not above the law. They are subject to it, as we all are. Some officers forget that, and when they do, public trust ebbs away.

I am not convinced that internal anti-corruption units bring the conviction rates necessary to root out police corruption. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will at least consider the feasibility of establishing a national and specialist anti-corruption unit by pooling existing resources that can be called on to investigate allegations of police corruption. The process by which anti-corruption investigations are triggered should also be reviewed. It should not be left to the discretion of chief officers alone to sanction such investigations.

Similarly, action is needed on race relations. Racism within the police or any workplace is completely unacceptable, but race should not be used by a small number of ethnic minority officers as a way to march chief constables down to the bank to hand over large amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to avoid damaging headlines about police forces. I have some sympathy for the comments of Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on employment tribunals; many more police officers should exercise more resolve in taking on police officers who do not have a genuine employment grievance.

Although the vast majority of ethnic minority police officers undertake their duties professionally, with skill and courage, some constituents of mine fear that some look to their bank accounts before seeking to get on with their duties. White British officers are guilty of abusing the employment tribunal system as well, although their claims are mostly of a different nature. Where false claims are made, officers should be sacked, not promoted. For every spurious police employment tribunal claim, public trust in the police ebbs away.

Of course, many such issues can be minimised and mitigated by the more liberal application of a much needed attribute in some police forces: leadership. I hope that the Minister will consider how leadership might be revived in the police. Surely leadership is not only to be found hanging alongside a gold-framed MBA certificate on a senior officer’s wall.

We need a much improved way to recognise and reward leadership within the police, perhaps by introducing an officer entry qualification or new fast-track promotion for outstanding individuals. For example, the skills of ex-military personnel with experience of leading men and women should be recognised more fully. Others might come from other leadership backgrounds. I fear that bed-blocking by rank, most notably at sergeant rank, threatens to hold back a generation of proven and natural leaders within the police. The police service desperately needs such leaders, and the public want them.

I also hope for a review of the number of police agencies and quangos. It appears that scores of retiring senior police officers—usually they retire quite young—never actually retire. They have little time to spend their generous pensions and large lump-sum payoffs; instead, they leave the force to re-emerge in one of many police agencies or umbrella organisations, usually on higher pay than the Prime Minister.

Bonuses for police officers should stop. A rate of pay should be agreed, and senior officers should either apply for jobs based on that stated rate or take another career path or job. Doing the right thing, doing a good job and believing in their important public service role should be reward enough.

Far too many of my constituents agree that the police, like the BBC, are one of our last great unreformed national institutions, which is concerning. If policing by consent rather than by warrant card is to be re-established, perhaps where colleagues have witnessed a retreat in recent years, I hope that the police will embrace reform rather than rejecting or repelling it.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important issue. Although there are real concerns, the Kent police constabulary, for example, has a satisfaction rate of 87%, according to the Kent crime and victim survey. That clearly shows that, although there are legitimate concerns nationally, some police constabularies, such as that in Kent, are doing an excellent job.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is right to highlight good practice and good police work when he sees it and so, too, are Members across all parties. Indeed, I hope that I have highlighted such things in trying to balance my speech.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an intelligent and compelling argument, but are not senior police officers acting perfectly rationally in taking their lead from organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose leadership considers it appropriate to give a running commentary on the fiscal decisions of the democratically elected Government? There is also an institutionalised lack of accountability because local police officers are essentially accountable only to the Home Office, not to elected officials or the people whom they serve at local level.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience to bear, and he is absolutely right that senior officers in particular should stay out of politics, law making and social work and refrain from commenting on important fiscal and Treasury matters. Clearly, they have a view about their police budgets, but if far more police officers spent more time actually doing the job of policing, perhaps crime would be down even further. I agree with my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to raise the issue.

I hope that the police will very much embrace the reforms that the Government are introducing, rather than rejecting and repelling them. Chief officers should avoid being alarmist and offering up alarmist comments and overreaction in the debate about the public deficit. They can and will form part of the reform process, but they cannot write their own terms, for that would avoid the real and lasting reform that modern policing needs if it is to re-engage with the public and public trust is to be restored where it has been lost.

I end as I began—by paying tribute to the many police officers who undertake their job day in, day out in a professional, dedicated and often courageous manner. Such hard-working officers, of whom there are many in my own police constabulary area of West Mercia, are similarly frustrated by colleagues in the police force who lie, commit perjury, sell private details to the tabloid media and break the Official Secrets Act. Like the public, they are fed up of lazy and incompetent police officers. Such officers should—I say this as a slight aside—be subject to an annual fitness test and certainly to better leadership and discipline, as I have suggested.

Policing remains a high and noble vocation. The United Kingdom has some of the most dedicated and professional officers in the world, but unless there is a marked change in leadership and discipline, the rooting out of corruption and the sacking of incompetent officers, as well as an avoidance of the growing “them and us” approach to policing the public, whom we all serve, public trust in policing will continue to ebb away. That is not in the police’s interest or the public interest, and it is certainly not in the national interest. Let us see a revival of police discipline and leadership; we will then see a restoration of public trust in policing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. It is also a real pleasure to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I regard him not only as a friend, but as someone who thinks carefully before making his speeches. His was a very thoughtful speech, which raised several issues of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was in the Minister’s position until very recently, will have taken on board many of the points made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

The debate is well attended, which shows the tremendous interest in the House in policing issues. The hon. Gentleman was right to end his speech by praising the work of so many police officers, but he was also right to mark up a number of issues that really need to be addressed. Our debates in the House deal largely with the great issues—the structures and the new landscape—of policing, and we sometimes forget individual cases. Such cases are often brought to the public’s attention through the media and therefore have a disproportionate influence on how people regard the police. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of cases.

We live in exciting times as far as policing is concerned. The Home Affairs Committee is certainly extremely busy scrutinising the Government on a number of policing issues. We have decided to conduct three inquiries into policing this year—they are rather like “The Lord of the Rings” in that they are a trilogy. The first report will deal with police commissioners, and we will rush it out by the end of October because the Bill dealing with the issue is due before the House in November. The second report will deal with the elements of the planned national crime agency, which will result in legislation next summer. The third report will relate to the comprehensive spending review, and I fear that a number of the issues that we raise today will have to be seen in the light of what the Government decide to do about the policing budget.

I want to raise a number of issues that I think will be of use to the House. As constituency MPs, we all have examples of dealings with local people who are concerned about the police, although none of us, except the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), has actually served in a police force.

One of the easiest things for the police to look at, which actually costs no money at all, is how they deal with the public. Good customer service is essential to ensuring that we have policing by consent and it means that when people send letters to chief officers or local commanders, they get a reply very speedily. One of the points made to the Committee in its short inquiry into the Independent Police Complaints Commission earlier this year—in fact, it was in our recommendations—was that if police at the local level dealt more efficiently and effectively with concerns raised by the public, the need for complaints would diminish.

The first aspect that I want to raise is therefore very much in the hands of the police, and what happens depends very much on the personality and character of the chief constable; if the chief constable wants to make sure that something works, it will work. I had a useful meeting last Friday with the new chief constable in my area, Simon Cole. I raised my concern that when I write to the police on behalf of constituents who come to my surgery on a Friday, I do not get a reply for weeks or even months. All that those constituents want to know is what is happening about their cases. If they know, they will be satisfied. They might not be satisfied with the outcome, but they will at least know what is going on.

Providing good customer service and responding to concerns are therefore important. The Fiona Pilkington case occurred in Leicestershire. As hon. Members know, Ms Pilkington made 33 complaints to the local police force before she drove off and set her car on fire. That is an example of what happens when people do not get a response. I hope that everyone learns the lessons of what happens when the police do not respond; I know that Leicestershire police have. If forces get their house in order and provide the right service, that will be very helpful.

The second issue is visibility. I do not know whether the Minister knows how much his budget will be next year or whether he has just received a text from the Chancellor asking him to go to No. 11 to discuss it, but I am sure that his budget will be cut. If it is cut, to the levels that he and I think possible, that will have a huge impact on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. The police cannot perform the functions that the public expect them to unless they have the budgets to enable them to do so.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that discipline and leadership in the police do not necessarily have to come with a price tag?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and compliments. On his latter points, can he give a specific example and provide the counterview to that example that he thinks should be put?

[Mr Watson]

No, I will not be doing that. I have limited time and my real reason for being here today is to talk about the Metropolitan police and their conduct of the inquiry into phone hacking by the News of the World.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, mentioned that it would be nice if chief officers replied to MPs’ letters. Given the national interest in the issue, I would like to gently chastise the Metropolitan police for their failure to respond to what I thought was quite an important letter that I sent to Sir Paul Stephenson on 3 September. In the letter, I asked whether every person whose phone was listed in the Glenn Mulcaire evidence file was informed that they were a target of hacking; and, if they were not informed, who decided, according to what criteria and on what authority, which names were to be investigated and which were to be ignored?

When it became public that a Metropolitan police officer, Michael Fuller, was also on Glenn Mulcaire’s list, I was extremely concerned that Met police officers themselves did not know that they might have been the target of phone hacking. I therefore asked Sir Paul Stephenson if he would confirm how many Metropolitan police officers were on the Mulcaire files. He has not responded.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I would like to make my point first. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the end of my speech.

I also asked why people on the Mulcaire list were not informed and how many people were on the list of the Mulcaire evidence file, because that is still not in the public domain. Many Members of Parliament were on the Mulcaire lists. We still do not know how many and I do not know if all the Members of Parliament on that list have yet been informed. I asked Sir Paul Stephenson to answer that and to confirm who decided which Members of Parliament should be notified, according to what criteria, and on whose authority. He has not responded. I also asked Sir Paul Stephenson to confirm which victims were selected to be notified and on what criteria. There are a lot of unanswered questions in relation to the Metropolitan police inquiry.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention later, if he will be a little patient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Watson]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. I would not dream of attempting to transgress the rules of the House on sub judice. I simply seek to get the facts, and not enough of the facts are in the public domain.

The Minister has it in his power to cast light on this sorry tale. He could review the Metropolitan police advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus be confident in his own mind about whether the DPP was given all the evidence required to bring appropriate cases. If the Minister wanted to, he could ask an external police service to investigate the conduct of the inquiry by the Metropolitan police. I would like him to acknowledge whether that is an option he is considering taking. He could, if he wanted to, talk to the Prime Minister about the potential for a judicial inquiry into the conduct of this case.

Members of Parliament, senior police officers, senior members of the military, the heir to the throne and leading celebrities have been the target of criminal activity on an industrial scale by News International journalists, and that has not been adequately investigated. So in today’s debate on trust in the police, I would like to say that I have absolute confidence in the police’s ability to get to the truth.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is being as gracious as ever and I am grateful to him for giving way. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly said that he did not want to play “party politics” with this debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to do that, but I fear he is perhaps straying into party politics. I think he is at his very best when he is representing the interests of his constituents in West Bromwich—where, if he looks at the latest statistics, he will see that burglary has increased—who are concerned about and have a real fear of crime, rather than trying to make wild accusations and party political points on a very narrow matter. Let us stick to the debate on the important topic of public trust in the police that is important to his constituents and, indeed, throughout the country.

[Mr Watson]

I do not believe that that was a question; it was a statement. I cannot recall one word of any of my sentences that was of a party political nature. I seek to get to the facts after a unanimous inquiry conducted by my own Select Committee—the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport—and the establishment of two further inquiries agreed by both Front Benches in Parliament.

To sum up, will the Minister let me know whether he sees merit in an investigation into the conduct of the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. As in the film, I am back to the future in coming back to a role that I had 15 months ago. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, still in his place. He made his contribution in the thoughtful way in which he normally tries to take forward debates. Many of us will be in Cannock Chase to contribute to the seminar that he has arranged. Some interesting points have been made, and I would like to deal with some of them before the Minister responds.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made some important points and discussed important challenges for the police. The concern that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), I and one or two others have is that, despite the hon. Member for The Wrekin’s making a caveat at the beginning and end of his remarks, about individual cases and about casting aspersions on the whole police service, some of the high-profile cases and incidents to which he referred do just that.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) asked why fear of crime goes up when crime is actually falling. I shall refer to that further in a minute. If a particular problem or scandal is splashed all over the newspapers every day—such things should be publicised, of course; I am not saying that they should not—that is what happens.

I was the police Minister when we had the horrific spike in knife and gun crime. Unfortunately, I understand from the figures that there is some suggestion that it is happening again this year. One would go to areas of the country where there had not been a stabbing for years, yet people were frightened of being stabbed.

The language and tone of any debate about trust and confidence in the police are fundamental; that was the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East referred. He raised several serious issues. No one would condone corruption, brutality or police officers thinking that they are above the law. That is why my hon. Friend gets so cross about the phone hacking, and why he wants answers and a proper discussion of the matter. At the end of the day, it is knowledge that enables public trust.

The House of Commons Library pack to inform this debate on public trust in police forces is excellent. It highlights several unacceptable things that have happened and which have seriously undermined confidence and trust in various areas. However, if we let those become the narrative and the story for the whole of the police, we will have a real problem.

I have the Home Office’s crime statistics from July, which were published by the Minister. He needs to answer this question, because it goes to the heart of the matter. One of the reasons why people do not believe the crime statistics is that politicians often play around with them and pick out bits that prove their points. If they do that, why should people believe the statistics?

According to the British crime survey, crime has reduced by one half since 1995. Does the Minister agree with that? The report states:

“The most striking new finding within this report is that both the 2009/10 BCS and police recorded crime are consistent in showing falls in overall crime compared with 2008/09. Overall BCS crime decreased by nine per cent…and police recorded crime by eight per cent”.

Does the Minister agree with that?

Does the Minister agree that the same report shows that the fear of crime is going up, despite those figures? That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot made. I am trying not to be party political, but, to be honest, when the new Government saw the figures, they took the bit that was not such good news and headlined it, rather than going for a big banner headline that crime fell by one half since 1995 and that recorded crime and BCS crime were down by 9%. Is not that one of the things that we should be doing, instead of tucking it away in a little press release? That is part of the problem.

We have to use the figures and what the crime statistics tell us. The UK Statistics Authority said that the crime statistics are reliable and that therefore we should use them more than we do.

[Mark Pritchard]

I dispute some of the hon. Gentleman’s suppositions and comments, but if he accepts that the current statistics are complex and confusing, and that there is a variety of ways to collect data on a range of things that the police deal with, why did he not make changes when he was the police Minister?

[Vernon Coaker]

The point I am making is not so much that the statistics are confusing but that people pick out bits from them to prove their point. The overall crime statistics reflected in both the BCS and recorded crime figures show significant falls in crime. What should we do, if we want to ensure people’s trust and confidence in the police? What confidence can one have in the police?

At a recent conference, the Home Secretary said that the biggest factor was whether crime is falling in police force areas. She said that that is the measure that we should use to give the public confidence and trust in their police force, and to know whether police forces are being effective.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about crime falling in her area. That has to be the banner headline. If we try to undermine the statistics all the time, it is no wonder that people’s fear of crime rises.

In discussing how we keep confidence and trust, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said that some aspects are not hugely difficult. What seems to be difficult is for it to happen in every community in the country consistently and persistently. The things that drive confidence and trust are neighbourhood policing and a visible police presence, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said. There will be a debate about whether that has happened or not, but we need neighbourhood policing, visible policing and police being around and responding properly when phone calls are made about antisocial behaviour by a few kids on the street.

We are all constituency MPs. How many people come to us about terrorist incidents? Not many. How many come to us because they phoned up about what may seem a trivial incident but, to the member of the public, is fundamental? If that is responded to, even though it may seem trivial, confidence and trust in the police go up. People are not stupid. They know that sometimes things are difficult to deal with, but they expect that if they are worried about a kid who keeps banging on their door, somebody will say, “Yes, it should not happen. We are very sorry.” In the best cases—in an increasing number of cases—the police are recognising that and responding in the way that we would all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will respond to his points.

There is a danger, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, that such incidents create a damaging impression of policing as a whole. The problem is accountability. We live in the age of accountability, and people expect institutions and individuals who hold office to be properly and transparently answerable to them. That is right. We must have a system for complaints and the public must be able to take up issues if they believe that police performance has fallen down. We must have an overall system of answerability that commands public confidence and strengthens the links between the police and the public.

The thrust of our proposed reforms is to rebuild the bridge between the police and the public, and in particular to recognise that police forces sprang from local communities. We have never had a national police force in this country. Police legitimacy essentially flows from consent in those communities, and we want to loosen the central grip on policing that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) described and, in exchange, strengthen forces’ local accountability.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister refers to accountability. Does he accept that there is concern among the public, the rank and file in the police and certainly among senior and chief officers that it is difficult to sack police officers who are not doing their job correctly? Will he respond to my earlier comments and say that he will consider the matter, whether it will be part of the review, and whether we can get rid of some of the police officers who are doing such damage to the reputation of the police service?

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise to my hon. Friend, I will certainly respond to the specific points that he raised, but the review into police pay and conditions, which will be led by the former rail regulator, Tom Winsor, has a free rein to consider all such matters, and the way in which police officers are employed should certainly be one. People are free to offer their views to Tom Winsor and his fellow reviewers. That is reasonable, particularly given the scale of the fiscal and other challenges facing the police and their leaders

I turn to the reforms and the specific points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. A key element of our reforms is that police and crime commissioners should be directly elected, thus strengthening the bond between people and the police, and allowing local forces to be held to account. We also intend to introduce transparency. The public should know more about what is happening with crime in their area, and they should know how money is spent by police forces. That principle of transparency should apply throughout the criminal justice system, and from January 2011 we will introduce crime mapping at street level to provide the public with more information about what is happening in their area.

On crime statistics, I agree that we need a non-partisan debate. It is important to build public confidence in statistics, and the political trade about them has been unfortunate. Local crime mapping will give the public unimpeachable information that is directly relevant. I am afraid that national crime statistics are becoming less and less relevant because they are not believed. We have two measures of crime, but the recorded crime figures are susceptible to alteration and the way the figures are collected has been changed, and the British crime survey misses out large sections of crime.

I would like to return the challenge. I am relatively new to my position, and the hon. Member for Gedling is relatively new to his. If he would like a sensible discussion about how we can collect crime figures, so that in future months we do not have a dispute about the figures but talk instead about policy and what lies behind those figures, my door is open. That would be a sensible thing to do.