Police Officer Safety

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The outstanding speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) was a truly memorable parliamentary occasion, as was the fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I do not often say this, but the other side of the Pennines has a lot to be proud of, including even the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). To elicit from him an emotional reaction and support for the Labour party is a truly big achievement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen has managed that today.

This is an important and well-timed debate, because it provides me with an opportunity to put into proper context the recent work that I have been doing on policing. I am sure that some people might see challenging past injustice as in some way anti-police, but nothing could be further from the truth, and I am glad to have the chance to say that. I am pro-police, and I want to do whatever I can to strengthen the position of those out there on the frontline.

There are three ways in which we can do that. The first relates to police numbers and funding, and the second to protecting police officers through the powers we give them and through sentencing. The third is that we can build public trust in our police force by challenging past misdeeds. Unresolved past injustice can infect the present and unfairly leave a cloud hanging over officers on the frontline. It is right to remove it.

I want to touch on each of those three issues briefly. First, on funding, I am afraid that the Minister is wrong to say that the police budget has been protected. It has not been protected; it has been cut in real terms. Greater Manchester police’s revenue support grant was cut by £8.5 million this year, and the precept powers that it was given raised only £3.5 million. Let us get these facts straight, because otherwise the public will get confused. About 1,800 officers have already been lost from the frontline. We cannot take these cuts anymore. A story in The Mail on Sunday over the weekend said that the thin blue line of Greater Manchester is the thinnest of them all—it is the thinnest in the country. The cuts cannot continue. We need a commitment from the Government to honour their promise of no real-terms cuts to police budgets, because that has not happened.

Secondly, on protection for police officers, body-worn cameras need to be introduced now, because they can protect police officers today. We need a debate about the greater use of Tasers, and we really need to look at sentencing. I have mentioned the Dale Cregan situation previously, but there are other examples. An off-duty police officer, Neil Doyle, was killed in Liverpool. His attacker also committed a violent offence against two other individuals, but he only got three years and will soon be moved to an open prison.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one area that really affects police officers and the public is drink-driving and driving while disqualified? Repeat offenders can only be given sixth months’ custody—it does not matter whether it is a second, third or fifth offence—so we have to review the sentencing on that. My previous private Member’s Bill was designed to increase the maximum sentence to two years. Does he think that that is a good idea and that we should do it?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have always been too lenient on motoring offences, particularly death by dangerous driving.

I was talking about police officers, who need greater protection in law and in the sentencing guidelines. The Police Federation said today that the sentences that are handed out are often inadequate and inconsistent, and they simply do not provide the strong message that is required. We must resolve across the House to strengthen those sentencing guidelines, and I want to make my support for that absolutely clear.

I will finish on the point of public trust in the police. I believe we are all sent here to challenge injustice wherever we find it. Where we have evidence of it, we have a moral duty to act. Failure to do so corrodes the bond of trust between public and police, and it damages policing by consent. The decision on Orgreave this week was, in my view, wrong, and it makes it harder for the South Yorkshire police to move forward. That decision does not help officers in South Yorkshire who are out there on the frontline, because it leaves a cloud hanging over them.

Let me give the House a quick quote:

“Historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations… We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on”.

I could not agree more with those words—the words of our Prime Minister to the Police Federation this year. She is right, so what has changed? Why are we now pushing away those things and leaving them unresolved?

The Government have made their decision, but this House should make a different decision. I have today advanced the idea, based on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that a Select Committee should look at Orgreave. In my view, that is the right thing to do. I appeal to Members from all parts of the House to back that suggestion, so that we can build trust in our police and give them proper funding and protection.

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

One of my first acts as incoming Health Secretary was to commission Robert Francis QC to conduct an independent investigation into the events at Stafford on a local level. [Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are saying that it was not a public inquiry. They are right, but let me explain why. I did not commission a full public inquiry because, in my judgment, such an inquiry at that time, with all the glare and focus that it would bring to the hospital, would distract the hospital from its more immediate priority of making services safe as quickly as possible. I said to the chairman of the independent inquiry that if, at any time, he wanted to come back to me and ask for powers to compel witnesses, I would be well disposed towards receiving such requests. Given all the events that have taken place, to hear that the hospital is again having difficulties—that the A and E department is temporarily closed—gives me genuine cause for concern that the fundamental and far-reaching problems there have not been adequately addressed. That should concern us all.

I was talking about the risks identified by the NHS Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes risk register regarding the loss of capacity and problems in carrying out statutory functions resulting from the chaos caused by the Bill.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

Not for the moment.

The risk rating in that risk register was 16—extreme. Let me focus on the phrase, “statutory functions”, because it is important that the House fully appreciates what that involves. One of the statutory functions of the primary care trusts that have been wound down before new structures are in place is the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. What does the NHS London risk register say on this point? [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to listen. I am sorry if it is inconvenient for the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), but she will listen. The risk register makes the chilling prediction that the huge loss of named or designated professionals from PCTs across London, and the subsequent damage to information sharing, may lead to “preventable harm to children”. That risk was rated at 20 pre-mitigation and 15 post mitigation.

It is not just NHS London that is saying this. Let me quote again from the NHS Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes risk register; this time I ask the House to listen very carefully. It warns of a

“failure to deliver statutory requirements which leads to the significant harm or fatalities of children and vulnerable adults”.

That was originally rated as an extreme risk and, even after mitigation measures, it is still rated as “very high” with the possible frequency of occurrence being “monthly”.

This is what the national health service is telling the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister about the potential effects of their reorganisation. It is appalling and shocking. They are taking unacceptable risks with children’s safety and people’s lives. If this is what the NHS has been telling Ministers for 20 months, since the White Paper was published, how can they possibly justify pressing on with this dangerous reorganisation? Has not what remained of any justification for carrying on just collapsed before us? If this is what is published in local risk registers, that prompts the question of what on earth they are trying to hide in the national assessment. The simple truth is that they cannot publish because if people knew the full facts, that would demolish any residual support that this reorganisation might have.

That brings me to my third point—the Government’s claim that it is safer to press on with reorganisation than to deliver GP commissioning through the existing legal structure of the NHS. The evidence that I have laid out comprehensively dismisses that argument. If the Government were to abandon the Bill and work with the existing legal structure of the NHS, that would bring immediate stability to the system and, as the British Medical Journal has calculated, save over £1 billion on the cost of reorganisation. The Government’s claim that it is safer to press on is rejected by the overwhelming majority of clinical and professional opinion in England. The royal colleges and other professional organisations have given careful consideration to the pros and cons of proceeding and abandoning. Some disruption comes with either course of action, but given the terrible mess that we are now in, those royal colleges have concluded, one by one, that the interests of patients are best served by working to stabilise the system through existing structures.

It is not difficult to do that. PCT clusters could be maintained and the emerging clinical commissioning groups could simply take charge of the existing legal structure that is the residual PCT, and indeed any buildings and staff that they may still have. The painful truth is that delivering GP-led commissioning, which is where the Health Secretary began, could have been delivered without this Bill. Let me say to him again today that my offer still stands. If he drops the Bill, I will work with him to introduce GP-led commissioning using his emerging clinical commissioning groups.

However, that must be done in the right way. The local NHS risk registers raise concerns not only about reorganisation but about fundamental flaws in the policies that the Health Secretary wants to take forward. NHS Lincolnshire warns of a

“conflict of interest in CCG commissioning and provision: perceived or actual conflicts of interest arising from GPs as both providers and commissioners may impair the reputation of the CGG and, if not managed, may result in legal challenge.”

That has a moderate likelihood of happening but a consequence rated as catastrophic. A GP surgery in West Sussex has written to all its patients offering them

“private screening for heart and stroke risk”

from Health Screen First, for which, in return, the surgery receives a nominal fee from Health Screen First. In Haxby, GPs tried to restrict minor operations that are currently free on the NHS and at the same time launch their own private minor operations service, sending patients a price list. More broadly, stories are emerging around the country of plans by clinical commissioning groups to stop purchasing services from local hospitals, such as dermatology in Southwark and out-patients in south London. There are also plans to remove services from Stafford hospital, which we talked about earlier.

This unstable market in health care could have a very real effect on the viability and critical mass of essential hospital services, resulting in full or partial hospital closures. I have never heard of any plans from the Government to mitigate these risks other than the simple statement, “The market will decide.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although given that the Order Paper reads,

“this House calls on the Government to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill”,

I wondered whether he was in the right debate. He spent most of his time not mentioning the Information Commissioner, although he mentioned risk in the last minute.

I want to focus on the argument over the risk register. I support the Secretary of State’s decision to challenge the Information Commissioner’s decision ordering the release of the Department of Health risk register. It is important to consider the procedure followed by the commissioner in determining whether it was the right decision to make. The Secretary of State’s decision to challenge the commissioner’s ruling is, procedurally, absolutely correct. The procedures set out in the Freedom of Information Act, as amended—[Interruption.] It is important to set the tone and background.

[Andy Burnham]

It’s not a court.

[Rehman Chishti]

The shadow Secretary of State does not understand the legislation. That is why he is making these assumptions. Section 35(1) makes it clear that:

“Information held by a government department…is exempt information if it relates to…the formulation or development of government policy”.

[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like what they are hearing, but I hope that they will show the same common courtesy that I have shown them in the past. Section 35(1) makes it clear that the procedures applied by the Secretary of State were in line with the Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. Under that procedure and statute, he is entirely within his rights, using the correct procedure, to apply section 57 to appeal the ruling to the tribunal. That is absolutely right and proper.

It is important to say that we have the right—[Interruption.] I will come to the point on which the shadow Secretary of State keeps interrupting me—I am sure that he is not doing so to put me off making the point that he does not want to hear. Under the procedure in section 57, the Secretary of State can challenge a decision. It is important in our system—whether the criminal justice or the civil system—to have checks and balances on decisions that are made, whether by the Information Commissioner or by judges. If the shadow Secretary of State is now saying that the Information Commissioner’s ruling should be final, with no right of appeal, he should have said that when the Freedom of Information Act was being passed. However, he did not do so, and there is a right of appeal, where cases go to the tribunal. Even beyond that though, he asked earlier whether the Secretary of State could give us an assurance that he would not challenge the decision of the tribunal. Being realistic, how can the Secretary of State give that guarantee? The right hon. Gentleman knows, and I know, that the Secretary of State does not know what the judgment of the tribunal will be. He also knows that the rules that his Government passed, in section 59 of the Act, enable a referral to the High Court where there might be a wrong point of law.

[Andy Burnham]

Briefly, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a big difference between the Secretary of State being within his rights and his being right not to publish? We accept that he is within his rights, but is he right? The precedent was set by the previous Government. We published a risk register after receiving a ruling from the Information Commissioner. That is the precedent.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that point, to which I shall return. In my view, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to use that discretion. The shadow Secretary of State knows the Department of Health well because he has been there, but I should point out to him that a spokesman for the Department of Health said:

“We have never previously published our risk registers as we consider them to be internal management documents. We believe that their publication would risk seriously damaging the quality of advice given to Ministers and any subsequent decision-making”.

I would say to the shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.] He asked the question; I would be grateful if he listened to the answer. The reason why I say that the Secretary of State is within his powers and is right to do what he did is that never before have any Government or Secretary of State released that information. Being a sensible, considerate and fair man—which the Secretary of State is—he is right to challenge the decision, because that information has never been released before, as stated by the spokesmen for the Department of Health and made clear on page 2 of the information pack provided by the Library.

I also want to refer the shadow Secretary of State to another point. He has previously used the exemptions in section 36. Either we have exemptions or we do not, but the current exemptions, whether in section 36 or section 35, were put in place by the previous Government. If they did not want those exemptions—if they had said that everything should be in the public domain—they should have made that clear. I remind the Opposition of the saying “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. The fact is that you applied similar provisions, whether in section 35 or section 36, to withhold information. If you were able to do that in the public interest, then this Government, applying the same procedures and the same rules, can do so too. There is simply no point having legislation, in the form of the Freedom of Information Act, and now suddenly, when you are in opposition, you move the goalposts. In my view, that is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is also important to note that the Department of Health—

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend points out that coalition councils are not acting to protect Sure Start. He has come to an important point. The Government will have to decide. When the Prime Minister made promises last May, was he promising to keep Sure Start as a universal service? If he was, he really has to act. If, however, he had decided to let it become a targeted service—available in some communities and not in others, available to some parents and not others—he needs to be honest about that. He needs to say that and it needs to be clear that that is the Government’s policy.

The Government built a clear expectation among parents that they were preserving Sure Start as a universal comprehensive service that would give all children the best start in life. Indeed, at the last Education questions, the Secretary of State said that he would guarantee all children a high-quality place. The Government will have to live up to that promise.

If today the Prime Minister believes as strongly in Sure Start as he appeared to on the eve of polling day, he must act to save it. He must stop the disinvestment in Sure Start by councils and reinstate the Sure Start ring-fence in the next financial year, as our motion suggests, to protect a service that is still very much in the early years itself.

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

Will the shadow Secretary of State also congratulate Medway, an authority that is retaining its 19 Sure Start centres? It is going beyond that and showing the Government’s commitment to helping and supporting the young ones in their early years. I have a letter from the Department for Education dated 13 March 2011. It says that the Government are giving an additional £275,000 to Medway to increase provision to two-year-olds, three-year-olds and four-year-olds. That shows the commitment from local councils and the Government.

[Andy Burnham]

I am not in a position to judge the decisions of Medway council. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the cuts introduced by the coalition since the last election have led to a £40-per-child cut in the early-intervention grant in Medway. If the council is making the best of a bad lot, I say good luck to it; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage other councils to do the same.