Policing

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

We are proud that crime has fallen by a third on our watch. I recognise—because I have visited the force and spoken to Andy personally—that Merseyside police, like many police forces across the country, clearly feel very stretched at the moment. That is why, having done this review, we have gone back, looked at the settlement, listened to the police and the PCCs, and come forward with proposals that will increase investment in the policing system by £450 million, including an additional £5.2 million for Merseyside next year, if the PCC maximises his flexibility.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

The Mayor of London took the decision to cut the policing budget by £38 million this year, while stockpiling reserves that are equivalent to 10% of funding and overseeing an increase in serious crime. I welcome the statement, which will allow the Mayor to reverse that decision and allow the increase for Metropolitan police funding by up to £43 million. Does the Minister agree that this shows that with the Conservatives people get good results and sound management, and that with Labour they get neither?

[Mr Hurd]

I agree. Labour MPs are chuntering about tax increases, but when they call for more investment, where do they think it will come from? I was accused earlier of passing the buck. The reality—I know that the Labour party does not like it—is that we have changed the model so that the public can see clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for the performance of their police service, and in London that means the Mayor. Instead of sitting in his bunker writing letters asking for more money, the Mayor should get out there and tell us what he is doing to implement his crime plan.

Police Funding: London

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As a London MP, I, like many Members from both sides of the House, have campaigned to protect police funding across London. It is right that MPs and Assembly Members continue to do so, and it is right that the Mayor is a leading voice in that campaign. However, the Mayor needs to ensure that his discretionary choices in his budget match up to his rhetoric and his ask of central Government. As we have heard, he has choices that he can make in other budgets and he has significant usable reserves. He removed £38 million from the budget this year, which is roughly equivalent to the amount that would be needed to bring police numbers up to his target of 32,000. The previous Mayor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), identified a funding gap a good few years ago and campaigned about it. He also planned for it—the Met has been planning since 2015. I am sure that if the roles were reversed, Labour would be attacking the Mayor rather than looking at central Government.

We have heard about the up-tick in knife crime and gun crime against a similar financial background to the one seen under the previous Mayor. We have also heard about the proliferation of new types of crime—acid attacks and moped crime. I will not go into more detail about that, because others have done so already.

I am concerned about the proposed station closures, too, but partly for operational reasons. Worcester Park has a shop front, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) said. I am concerned that the travel times for safer neighbourhood teams, which have to come from central Sutton to get to their areas, are included in their shift times—they have a centralised meeting—which takes time out of their time on the beat. That is worrying.

We heard a bit about three-borough mergers. I am particularly concerned about that, because a proposal to merge Sutton with Croydon and Bromley is being looked at, but a linear settlement like that would have a huge effect on response times. We know how difficult it is to get across London, as opposed to in and out.

I commend the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her work on police safety. In a previous debate that she secured, I talked about the use of spit guards and about the equipment that police need. I do not want the funding issues to prevent the police from having the equipment they need to do their job properly. The Mayor of London is no longer a lawyer representing people making claims against the police. He represents Londoners, including victims of crime, potential victims of crime and the police officers on the frontline. It is important that we support them. I conclude by thanking Sutton police, who provide a fantastic service and keep Sutton one of the safest boroughs in London.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

I call Sir Ed Davey—very briefly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

We do have a priority system, and I outlined earlier the high levels of success we have in dealing with applications in the timeframes set out in our service level agreements. Obviously, some cases have complexities to them, which means that they will take longer, and we let individual applicants know that.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

The Crown Prosecution Service report on violence against women and girls, which was published last week, demonstrated that real progress has been made in encouraging victims to report their crimes, and in improving the number of perpetrators who are prosecuted and convicted. But we know that many survivors do not involve the police. Women’s Aid found that only half of women in refuges report crimes against them, and only one in five women had seen a criminal case or sanctions against a perpetrator. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the welcome new domestic violence and abuse Bill will not only focus on the criminal justice system but deliver the progress that survivors need across all areas of Government, including housing, health and support for their children?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the significant progress that the Government have made on tackling domestic violence and the support that we are giving to victims. We are not at all complacent, however, and we have a groundbreaking opportunity with the forthcoming legislation to make the prevention of domestic violence and abuse everyone’s business. I am working with vigour and at speed with colleagues across Government to make sure that we have, as my hon. Friend quite rightly points out we should, a joined-up approach that includes housing, welfare and employment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady is right to raise these horrendous crimes, which have no place in our society, but she is wrong to say that we have been sitting on our hands. We have introduced not only the hate crime strategy but a whole series of offences, for which I am pleased to see the police successfully prosecuting people. We have also done groundbreaking work with the internet industry, which is taking seriously its responsibility to take down dreadful incidents of online hate crime.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

T3. As I am sure the Minister will be aware, Sutton is a low-crime London borough—I commend the excellent work that the local police force does to keep it so—but in the past few weeks there have been three serious assaults on our high street, including two involving knives. What more can the Government do to tackle knife crime in London boroughs and places such as Sutton?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this serious situation. I commend him and the Metropolitan police which, along with other police forces, has been working on Operation Sceptre, which includes knife sweeps. I recommend that he speaks to the head of Sutton Borough Council to see if they are interested in working with the Institute of Community Safety to undertake an area review and make sure that everything is being done to stop this dreadful crime.

Police Officer Safety

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

In 2003, PC Patrick Dunne was a Sutton resident serving in Wandsworth when he arrived in Cato Road in Clapham on his bike to deal with a minor domestic abuse call-out. Hearing gunfire, he rushed out into the street and was hit by a single pistol shot in the chest, which killed him instantly. His murderer, Gary Nelson, laughed with his colleagues and fired a celebratory shot in the air, before driving off leaving two dead bodies behind, including the victim of the original gunshot. Nelson was caught, prosecuted and sentenced to 35 years. Sutton’s serious crime office, which is attached to our main police station, is named Patrick Dunne House, reminding us every day not only of his bravery, service and life, but the threat our police officers face each day.

In 2009, PC Paul Dalton, a member of the Wrythe safer neighbourhoods team in Sutton next to where I live, was on shift walking close to a local funfair on a Sunday. He was stabbed in the neck with a wine bottle in an unprovoked attack. He bravely managed to chase his assailant and make an arrest. Fortunately, his stab-proof vest prevented a more severe injury, and the person was arrested and jailed for five years. In London terms, Sutton is a low-crime borough, and residents do not expect that sort of violence, but police officers know that, however unlikely, something could happen at any time. As well as policing more dangerous areas than Sutton, Met police officers have to police public events and demonstrations, and face constant terrorist threats.

I have seen demonstrations turn ugly here in Westminster and the pressure that police officers come under when that happens. Six years ago, I watched from Bellamy’s café as protesters outside, right in front of us, picked up rubble from roadworks with the clear purpose of throwing it at police officers. I can only stand in awe of how police officers keep their nerve, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), along with their patience and their discipline, and I have seen how pumped up they are at the end of their shifts. Parliament Square that day looked like a war zone, with fires all around.

Today, assaults on officers are still too frequent—frankly, just one is too many. Operational changes, as we have heard, as well as changes in sentencing and sentencing advice can help. Police officers face risks from spitting, including hepatitis, and may have to take courses of powerful anti-viral drugs, for up to three months, that can cause severe nausea.

I was very disappointed when the Mayor of London abruptly pressed the pause button at the last minute on the trialling of spit guards. As London’s equivalent of a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor is no longer a lawyer who represents people claiming against the police; he represents the police officers and their welfare, and he represents Londoners, so it is for him to maintain their safety. I hope he will look again at this issue.

As we have also heard, body cameras are a useful innovation for reducing complaints about police officers. I read an interesting report by the University of Cambridge, which suggested that incidents of assaults had increased for those wearing body cameras by 15%. The university acknowledged, however, that far more research needs to be done to explain what lies behind that.

A number of Members lobbied the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect the police budget and protect police numbers last time. We want to make sure that our brave police officers are out and about, acting as a visible deterrent, but also keeping us safe.

Donald Trump

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), a fellow member of the Petitions Committee, on leading the debate. I was keen to participate not only because of the substance of the debate, but to echo the sentiments he expressed about why the Committee decided to hold it. The issue has caught the media’s eye, and some people have been concerned about our discussions. For any petition of more than 100,000 signatures, the mechanism is in place for us at least to seek to allow the public to have a voice in this place, whether through a Select Committee, in a wider debate that is already ongoing, or in the research that we carry out—for example, the Committee is looking at research into brain tumours.

In this instance, as has been the case on several other occasions, it is appropriate for us to give members of the public a voice in Westminster Hall. Donald Trump’s favourite UK columnist, Katie Hopkins, was on John Pienaar’s radio programme on Sunday and asked why we were not debating other matters, such as the immigration petition that has received a number of signatures. She claimed that it was down to us being politically correct. It was nothing of the sort. We held a debate on immigration, which I led, back in October, as a result of a petition that was worded in a very similar manner. It was more appropriate to push on with this debate. Wherever possible, we do not want to duplicate work. The hon. Member for Newport West forgot to mention one petition that we should roll up with the others. As of this morning, 75 people had signed a petition inviting Donald Trump to address Parliament. Perhaps we might want to consider that.

It is important that members of the public who are watching the debate understand that it is not going to result in a vote. It is not for us to decide whether Donald Trump should or should not be allowed into the country. It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether any visit that he might make is conducive to the public good. Nevertheless, the debate allows us to have our say, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will be listening. There are examples of when people have been excluded from this country. I have heard of a number of cases in which people have been excluded for incitement or for hatred; I have never heard of someone being excluded for stupidity, and I am not sure that we should start now.

I totally agree that we should not be focusing on one man. Over the course of the debate, I would like us to look at the wider issues surrounding this matter and how they affect the UK: immigration, global security, and the positive contributions made to this country by people with Muslim faith, whether they were born in this country or have come here and added to our economy, culture and community.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the second most popular petition on the website, with 457,000 signatures, is one with the title “Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated”? Does not that motion show why it is important to challenge views such as Donald Trump’s in a robust, evidence-based and democratic way?

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. That wording is very similar to the one for the debate I led in October. There are a lot of petitions out there with quite inciteful and clumsily worded approaches. There is a fear of immigration and for global security. I suspect that Donald Trump’s words were borne out of his own fears, although as an aspirant leader he should be leading the way towards a clearer understanding of this issue. It is not acceptable for him to say, “We need to stop immigration of this sort until we understand what is going on.” That is not acceptable for an aspirant world leader.

We know the benefits of controlled immigration in this country. As the son of someone who was born in Burma—I am half Anglo-Indian—I have seen the benefits of good immigration, when people contribute to this country, make no claims on social services and have incredible aspirations for education and hard work. But mass, uncontrolled immigration puts a lot of pressure on services and infrastructure and puts a lot of concern into people’s minds. I suspect that, like America, the UK feels that, hence the number of signatories to the petition, but we need to tackle it in a very different way.

We need to speak about the positive contributions made to business investment, to science and medical procedures, and to culture. Many Members will know that I do quite a lot of work with the British curry industry in my role as chair of the all-party group on the curry catering industry. That one industry alone is worth £3.5 billion to £4 billion to this country’s economy, depending on who one speaks to. It employs 100,000 people and affects a number more. We all enjoy a curry, and it would be bad for the UK economy if the industry continued to struggle. That is just one small industry. Let us look at the medical industry and business as a whole and at immigrants’ input to this country.

On global security, we need to look at the Government’s counter-extremism and counter-terrorism strategies. Those are far more clever, positive and practical ways to approach the issues than the impractical suggestion simply to close the country to people from one faith. How would someone determine people of one faith? Would they put a badge on them? Would they record them on a database? Although he has not gone quite as far as suggesting putting a badge on people, Donald Trump has not excluded keeping people on a database, which is an extraordinary route to go down.

We have very limited time, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I hope that over the course of the debate we will be able to concentrate on practical ways that this country can tackle immigration and community cohesion, rather than worrying about the ego of one man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

The remarks are daft and offensive. I defend people’s right to be daft and offensive. I was chairman of the National Council for Civil Liberties—now Liberty—and have fought to defend freedom of speech throughout my life, but freedom of speech is not an absolute. Neither is there an absolute right for Donald Trump or anyone else to come to our shores. Successive Governments have acted to exclude the preachers of hate whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. Preachers of hate, the effect of whose actions and words would be to incite violence, have no right to come to Britain.

I have some examples of the kinds of people who have been banned. Michael Savage, a US radio host, was

“considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour…and fostering hatred”.

He claimed that American Muslims “need deportation” and was banned from coming to our country. Yunis Al Astal, the Hamas MP and preacher, was found to be guilty of “unacceptable behaviour”. He had made a series of anti-Semitic remarks and was banned from coming to our country. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, founders of Stop Islamization of America and the American Freedom Defence Initiative, were banned in 2013 by the current Secretary of State for the Home Office when they were due to speak at an English Defence League rally to be held on the location of Lee Rigby’s murder, as their arrival was deemed not

“conducive to the public good”.

Safwat Hegazi, an Egyptian television preacher, was in the words of the Home Office

“considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by glorifying terrorist violence”.

He had called for violence against Jews.

What has Donald Trump actually said? Of course, legendarily he spoke about a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States. He went on to say that

“51% of those polled, ‘agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.’”

He said:

“Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.”

It is little wonder that after those remarks a rise in attacks against Muslims in America was recorded.

Why do I argue for the exclusion of Donald Trump? It is because of the context in which we are having this debate. Our country faces a uniquely awful threat—a generational threat of evil terrorism. Terrorist arrests are being made at the rate of one a day in Britain. A key to preventing terrorist attacks has been the patient building by the police service of good relationships with the Muslim community through neighbourhood policing. That has been a key to the successful detection of terrorist after terrorist. The terrorism confronting the country takes two forms: first, organised cells that are organised from Raqqa; and, secondly, a strategy of radicalising the vulnerable—and in particular those with mental illness, and those suffering a sense of victimhood, encouraged by ISIS.

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

What makes Donald Trump’s presence in our country so dangerous is that in the current febrile climate, ISIS needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump needs ISIS. On the one hand, ISIS needs to be able to say, “Muslims, you are under attack.” On the other hand, Donald Trump needs to be able to say, “You are under attack by Muslims.” That is why I strongly believe he should not be allowed to come to our country. Just think what would happen in the current climate if he came to Birmingham, London or Glasgow and preached that message of divisive hate. It would be damaging, dangerous and deeply divisive.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes some really interesting points. The examples he uses, however, are surely more about Donald Trump being a bigot than hatred. Britain is pretty good at roasting beef. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be better to just roast Trump?

[Jack Dromey]

I am sorry; I do not think that a debate such as this calls for flippancy. With the greatest of respect, when our police service and our security services are working night and day to prevent our country from being attacked, and when they need the support of the Muslim community, to have someone come to our shores who demonises all of the Muslim community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens. That is not a risk I am prepared to take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that our taking 20,000 refugees on the grounds of vulnerability is only a part of our efforts for refugees. The Government are spending more than £1.1 billion on helping refugees in the countries adjacent to Syria. I think he will agree that our record is second to none in that respect.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on tackling the problem at the Syrian end of the continent. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which the Government can tackle people smugglers and their awful business model is by breaking the link between getting on a boat or lorry in one part of the world and getting settlement in Europe?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; I could not have put it better myself.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course the Prevent duty we have introduced covers prisons as well as other public sector institutions. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice came into his post, he required a review of the provisions for dealing with radicalisation in prisons. That review has, I believe, yet to report, so there is a piece of work ongoing to look at what is happening in prisons. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will soon be meeting the prisons Minister to talk about exactly these issues, because we do recognise that we need to look at what is happening in prisons and ensure that we are taking every possible step to reduce the potential for radicalisation.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I was delighted to be able to join many of my constituents this morning in Sutton to observe a minute’s silence and to remember those who had fallen in Paris. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as testing our resilience to a similar attack here in the UK, we must also play a full role in defeating Daesh at its source on either side of the Iraq-Syria border? Does she also agree that it is most important that we continue with our daily way of life, in the full appreciation of the fact that we live in a free and democratic society?