Insecure Work and the Gig Economy

Debate between Stephanie Peacock and Steve McCabe

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephanie Peacock]

I join my hon. Friend in condemning that. I am sure the Minister is listening carefully.

Those workers are the real face of the gig economy. It is simply not good enough. We urgently need an economy that works for everyone. We need well-paid jobs that offer long-term security and give people the chance not just to get by but to succeed and prosper. We need genuine action that addresses the employment loopholes that unscrupulous employers use to exploit vulnerable workers. Many people in Barnsley and across the UK need action now.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We have 12 Members who want to speak, so I have to impose a time limit of three minutes. You have to stick to that.

Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Stephanie Peacock and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

I agree totally. Those reckless cuts and the Government’s refusal to recognise the consequences are the reason why we are experiencing such problems.

As well as giving us a hopelessly complacent message about crime falling, Ministers for far too long have tried to tell us that this is all about back-office savings—that the police are top heavy in administration and there is plenty of fat. As my hon. Friend says, the figures tell a different story. The number of police officers in the country has fallen for seven consecutive years, despite all those promises to protect the frontline. Since 2010, more than 20,000 police officers and 6,000 community support officers have been axed.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the falling numbers of police officers, and especially community police officers—in my region of Yorkshire, more than 400 have been lost—has a huge impact on antisocial behaviour, such as crimes committed on off-road bikes and mopeds, which plague communities like mine in Barnsley? Does he agree that more needs to be done to tackle it?

[Steve McCabe]

I do agree. It seems to me that one feature of policing, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour, must be deterrence. If people feel that they will not be caught and there will be no consequences, there is nothing to inhibit their behaviour, and that is exactly what we see in communities right across the country at the present time.

Policing has now reached a historic low, with forces at their lowest strength per 100,000 of the population since records began back in 1979. In the west midlands, as we have heard, we have 2,000 fewer officers compared with 2010 and there are 50% fewer community support officers. Conversely, better-funded forces such as Surrey, which benefit from the perverse nature of police funding decisions, have managed to increase their numbers of police officers for their low-crime communities over that same period. That says something about priorities and attitudes to crime and antisocial behaviour.

All of this is having a profound effect on police morale. The Police Federation report for 2017 shows that 58% of officers have reported not having time to do the job to the standard they would be proud of; 57% report being single-crewed, which increases operational risk, and 39% report high job stress.

I was recently told of an incident by someone who works in community safety. There was a local neighbourhood disturbance, with about 40 youths with weapons roaming the area, threatening each other and carrying out attacks. After several members of the public made repeated calls, a police car eventually turned up, sirens blaring. The youths scattered, and naturally there were no arrests. It turned out that the occupant of the police car was the duty inspector for the area, who was the only officer available. He freely confessed that he had had no choice but to turn up sirens blaring in the hope that he might scatter the youths. Is that really the level of policing we should expect in this day and age when our neighbourhoods are under attack? Force-wide voluntary resignations increased by 11% last year, and long-term absence is at record levels. Our police are stretched to breaking point.

It is hard to see how any Minister could come to the House with a straight face and continue to argue that the impact of their cuts is not affecting operational performance. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy report for 2016 talks of the risk that forces are struggling to meet demand and are resorting to artificial means of suppressing that demand. The report suggests that that might be done by downgrading the severity category of a call or by setting a quota for the number of cases that get referred for special assistance. For example, a number of forces are increasingly dealing with calls for service over the phone rather than deploying officers to visit the victim. That can be very inappropriate in certain types of cases—for example, assault or sexually related offences—and there can be no guarantee that the person charged with conducting the phone call has the correct skills to carry out such an interview.

Particular areas of concern are the large number of incidents in control rooms that do not receive an appropriate response, as referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). An immediate response should be within 15 to 20 minutes and a prompt response is usually within an hour. In either event, that is likely to be too long to prevent a crime or, in most cases, catch a perpetrator red-handed. However, in far too many cases, calls are not allocated for several days. That is consistent with the many examples of which Members will be aware from their constituents, saying that they phoned the police but did not hear back or that officers attended several days later but made no attempt to take finger prints or record any other significant details that might help identify the culprit. In too many circumstances, the response to a crime is a perfunctory police appearance, well after the event—that is if they turn up at all.

Across the United Kingdom, the number of abandoned 999 calls more than doubled in the 12 months from June 2016, rising from 8,000 to nearly 16,500 across 32 forces. The number of 101 calls abandoned over the same period also rose—by 116%. In total 230,000 calls were abandoned; 101 is the number that the police prefer the public to use to report antisocial behaviour. That is the reality of much police response in this day and age.

As I have said, we have to be careful about relying on ministerial fantasies that crime is falling. Half of police forces inspected since August 2016 have been rated as “inadequate” for failing to record hundreds of thousands of crimes reported to them—approximately 219,000 crimes a year. Only three forces were rated as “good”. West Midlands police were found to have failed to record an estimated 38,800 crimes. In 2015-16, no further action was taken in 74% of recorded offences and by 2016-17 that had increased to 76%. By far the largest category of “no further action” cases resulted from a failure even to identify a suspect. It is not hard to see why crime is rising if the fear of being caught is rapidly diminishing.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind the Minister of the importance of those findings and the store the Government place on HMIC inspections. The former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), told us that

“HMIC’s rolling programme of crime data integrity inspections will keep the spotlight on forces to improve the accuracy of their crime recording.”

That is exactly what HMIC is doing, and it is reporting an increasing number of forces unable to cope and, in many cases, opting to downgrade the reality of the crime people are experiencing.

There is little evidence of a robust Government response to those HMIC warnings. Ironically, even HMIC is seeing its budget cut, with a 14% reduction in cash terms since 2012. First the Government cut the police, and then they cut the agency charged with keeping track of police effectiveness. Is it really that surprising that there has not been an HMIC report on force handling of antisocial behaviour since 2012?

The Government have embarked on a dangerous road. It is important to remember that, as part of the incoming coalition Government’s efforts to diminish the Labour legacy, they put arguments about civil liberties ahead of issues of public safety. In everything from control orders, designed to protect us from would-be terrorists, to antisocial behaviour measures, Ministers set out to loosen existing legislation and controls. To some extent, the changes were cosmetic, but they had an impact, as can be seen from the reduction in the use of stop-and-search powers, and the corresponding increase in knife crime.

The then Home Secretary branded Labour’s antisocial behaviour measures “bureaucratic, expensive and ineffective”. She embarked on a series of changes that led to a loss of focus on bearing down on antisocial behaviour, as practitioners had to take time to learn new language and procedures for tackling existing issues for which powers were already proving quite effective. However, it was more than a rebrand. Abolishing ASBOs and introducing injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance was a weakening of the stance on antisocial behaviour. Breach of an ASBO was a criminal offence; breach of a civil injunction was a civil contempt, carrying a much lower maximum penalty. Significantly, under-18s can be dealt with only by the youth courts, where the penalties are lower.

Also, collapsing ASBOs and related measures into a civil injunction effectively removed the graduated response that Labour’s measures were designed to achieve. It is true that there was a fairly high breach rate for ASBOs, but acceptable behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour injunctions were stepping stones prior to an ASBO. There were stages to be gone through, and warnings could be issued if the initial response failed to quell the unacceptable behaviour. The Government’s changes swept all that away, along with all efforts to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation.

The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice regularly respond to questions about the effectiveness of their policies with the standard defence that it would not be cost-effective to collect the information requested. Indeed, the Government have contrived to make it virtually impossible to measure the effectiveness of their response to antisocial behaviour. Not only do they fail to collect information centrally; county courts do not do it either. Consequently, the only way to obtain information on the Government’s injunction strategy would be to examine individual case files. In fact, the Government have no capacity to link arrests, recorded crime, and prosecution and conviction data. They have no idea of the effect their policies have on crime and antisocial behaviour.

Labour’s approach was not just about court orders. Family intervention projects were established to provide focused work on those families considered most likely to generate antisocial behaviour problems. In 2007, the Department for Communities and Local Government produced a report that found that both criminal and antisocial behaviour had declined markedly at the point when those families exited the programme. The risk that they would face eviction because of their behaviour had also considerably reduced. Once again, the incoming Government sought to change things, and introduced a decentralised troubled families programme, with a significantly broader focus and, of course, fewer resources. It coincided with huge cuts in local authority youth programmes and other social services spending.

Despite early positive claims about the troubled families programme, an independent evaluation found that there was no significant impact across its key objectives and that it was not possible to evaluate estimates of savings, despite Government attempts to argue that the policy had resulted in savings of £1.2 billion. That, of course, was at a time when Ministers were keen on arguing for payment by results. However, the independent evaluation noted:

“The financial framework could have been significantly improved if it had followed the model of other programmes, which included a requirement to demonstrate that results were attributable to the programme.”

It is my contention that those changes in legislation, and the loss of focus, have damaged our ability to tackle antisocial behaviour. I attended a recent meeting of a community safety panel covering my constituency. I was impressed by the commitment of those present—about 23 people, including a fire station commander, who chaired the meeting, a police inspector, two councillors, a community representative and several council officers. It was a two-and-a-half-hour meeting; they are bi-monthly. It was full of presentations, which I must say I found interesting. However, what I did not get was that CompStat feeling: where were the raw data and the demand to do better? Where, indeed, were the results, and demands for action? I fear that, without greater direction from the senior echelons of the various agencies, community safety panels will become another part of the local bureaucratic apparatus. They are well intentioned, but what issues will they resolve?

It was interesting to hear that the panel had noted an increase in gang activity in south Birmingham and was concerned about an emerging picture suggesting that children are getting involved in gangs at a much earlier age, and that membership is no longer confined to those from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds but embraces those from what we might regard as quite middle-class homes. It seems to me that that information supports my view that we are losing control of our neighbourhoods, and that we need Government-directed activity and local intelligence to come together to provide clear action plans to tackle the threat posed by that emerging gang culture.

Neither the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister made a single reference in their conference speeches to antisocial behaviour. It is clearly not on their radar. Nor did they mention police resources. It is all very well the Home Secretary saying that she plans to keep the police safe, but how safe are they if there are not enough of them to do the job and they are exposed to risk every time there is a local incident? There was a passing reference in her speech to a review of moped crime—I hope that will also cover motorcycle crime. I welcome that, although my constituents would like a timescale and a promise of clear action. Perhaps the Minister can update us on what the Government intend. Also, where is the evidence that under-18s are the greatest offenders in acid attacks? If there is not such evidence, what exactly will be achieved by the Home Secretary’s announcement on the matter?

I reassure the Minister that I do not raise these issues for the sake of it. A recent analysis that received more than 1,000 responses in my constituency highlighted the priority that my constituents accord to such matters. More than 70% reported being very concerned about the rise in crime. With respect to the visibility of, and access to, police and community support officers, almost 90% reported experiencing a decrease; 92% regard it as a false economy that the Government have pursued a policy of reducing police numbers, especially when so much money can be found for other items. Nearly 40% of those I asked about the 101 non-emergency police number had never heard of it. Of those who had used it, nearly 30% reported that it was unsatisfactory. The chief complaint, which will be no surprise, is the time that it takes to get through. Too many people are left hanging on, and are forced to give up. Those who do get through often find the response unsatisfactory.

Bearing in mind that I am a Birmingham MP and that what happens in London does not reflect the whole country, the Minister may want to note the fact that nearly 75% of those responding to the survey thought that we might need to look again at the rules on stop-and-search. I remind you, Mr Bailey, that it was the present Prime Minister who championed curtailment of the use of stop-and-search. I wonder whether the increase in acid and knife attacks, gun crime and gang activity suggests we may need to listen to the majority of our constituents, who are asking about their civil rights.

Often in crime surveys it is argued that people’s fear of crime is a much bigger issue than their actual experience, so I asked how many of those responding had been a victim of crime or had someone close to them experience a crime in the past 12 months. Over 50% said that they had; that is not exactly a picture of crime falling or a situation that is under control. One of the few aspects of antisocial behaviour the Home Secretary acknowledged in her conference speech was the problem of moped and motorcycle crime and associated offences—94% of respondents said that it is time to come up with new ways of tackling that menace, as current methods are simply not working.

What should we do? Clearly, we need a greater uniform presence, and to that end I support Labour’s sensible and costed proposals for an extra 10,000 officers. I recognise that it takes time to recruit and train such numbers, so in the interim we can perhaps look at making better use of other personnel, such as transport police, council security staff and even some traffic wardens. I draw the line at suggestions that employees of private security organisations such as G4S should be given the power of arrest, and I hope that the Minister will knock that on the head today.

I advocate that we need to examine stop-and-search once more, particularly where there is evidence of a high risk of weapons being carried and increases in knife and gun crime and other violent assaults. Members will recall that the Prime Minister claimed in her 2014 conference speech that the number of black people being stopped and searched had fallen by two thirds as a result of her intervention. However, the figures show that although overall stop-and-search is down, the number of black people being stopped and searched as a percentage of the total has actually risen. It is a failed policy. Discrimination needs to be tackled, but not with red tape that ties the police in knots and puts the safety of whole communities at risk.

I do not understand why, in an age of high-quality cameras that are so small and relatively cheap, it is so difficult to mount more successful surveillance operations in areas where particular types of street crime such as theft, assault and carjacking are prevalent. When it comes to the pursuit of those on mopeds and motorcycles, why is more attention not given to drone technology, and where local communities are clearly being intimidated, why not make more use of professional witnesses to identify and prosecute prolific offenders?

We need to see a new energy in tackling aggressive antisocial behaviour, with guidance from the Home Office to chief constables, police and crime commissioners and local authority chief executives making it clear that it is a priority and must be tackled. That should be coupled with a reinvigoration of community safety panels, with a clear emphasis: their job is to collect and analyse data, so that they can demonstrate how they are getting on top of rising neighbourhood crime and aggressive antisocial behaviour. If the Government are determined to hide behind the cloak of localism, they must issue guidance on how data are collected and shared on the success of measures such as criminal behaviour orders and civil injunctions. We must be able to see reliable comparisons, so that there is proper evidence about the scale of the problem and the success and failure of existing strategies and policies.

I support the development of a national transformation fund to tackle some of the worst areas of deprivation, but we should also entertain the idea that such an approach should be coupled with a new family intervention programme, so that those who create the most problems are not simply left to enjoy state benefits without any obligations on their behaviour. We need to revisit their entitlement to enjoy rented tenancies in areas where they cause untold trouble.

In circumstances where the perpetrators are homeowners or responsible for those living at their abode, we need to be bold. Where the culprit or someone regularly living under the roof of that person is guilty of persistent aggressive antisocial behaviour, we need to change the law so that eviction is the end point. Local authorities should be given new powers with the police, so that those who persistently practise aggressive antisocial behaviour, or permit its practice from their dwelling, can have their property made subject to a compulsory purchase order—effectively forcing them to leave the area and preventing them from continuing to practise the evil that they have inflicted on innocent victims for too long.

The simple truth is that the last Labour Government picked up the challenge of aggressive antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods and did something about it after years of neglect. The present Prime Minister has failed us on that vital area of crime by cutting our police, ignoring the predicament of our constituents and allowing crime and antisocial behaviour to grow. It is time for a substantial change.