Transparency and Accountability Bill
Stephen Twigg Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on his wide-ranging Bill, which focuses on the important principles of openness, transparency and freedom of information. I will briefly comment on some aspects of the Bill, starting with part 1, which deals with family justice.
A sensitive balance needs to be struck between the support given to children and families in the courts and the maintenance of confidentiality where that is needed, and preventing any undue influence on proceedings by family members. The Bill makes the sensible proposal to establish a norm whereby families are offered family group conferences. It seems only fair and right that when families suffer discord, there should be an attempt to reconcile those differences and to build a family plan, agreed with the family and the Child Support Agency, that will offer a more inclusive service.
I am pleased that the Bill appreciates that child protection conferences might be necessary at times with experts only, and I welcome the requirement that families, in advance of any conferences regarding their circumstances, would be given a publication explaining the system and how it might affect them in the future. There seems to be a strong case for allowing parties to have two “friends” with them for support, advice or even advocacy purposes. Actions in the family courts can be traumatic, and we must do everything possible to ensure that people who go through the experience are given all the necessary support, while at the same time ensuring that the confidentiality of proceedings is maintained.
I particularly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s proposals to give grandparents a greater role in proceedings. He mentioned the fantastic organisation Grandparents Plus. In my constituency, I have a local group of kinship carers, based in Norris Green, which works hard to support family members other than parents who are bringing up children. These are often grandparents, and typically grandmothers. The proposals will help to give more rights and support to caring grandparents, and that is a welcome development. The broad principle that families are not simply nuclear but involve members of the extended family should be reflected in the proceedings of the family justice system, although I of course accept the need for a judge to have discretion to have the final say about a grandparent’s presence.
Let me say something about children in care. It is sensible that when children in the care of their local authority make complaints, those complaints should be considered by an independent body, and also that it should be an offence to discriminate against children in care. We must be careful to avoid unintended consequences, however. For example, in the education system, schools are now obliged to give preference to children in care—that is, to positively discriminate in their favour. That is a change that has been welcomed on both sides of the House, and we would not want to see any unintended consequences as a result of moves to outlaw discrimination against children in care.
I welcome clause 4. Taking a child away from a family for adoption is a serious matter, and it is right that when judges make that judgment—as they will sometimes have to—they set out their considered points as to why they came to such a conclusion.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with wrongdoing in court. This is a controversial and important area, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman set out. There is a case to be made for the proposals to discourage people from intimidating whistleblowers, and to publish the names of people imprisoned for contempt of court. However, the proposals need to be considered in greater detail. They require further consideration and scrutiny.
Parts 3 and 4 are especially welcome, and I shall end my speech with an observation on each. As the hon. Gentleman said, the proposals in part 3 relating to consumer complaints were developed by Which?, and I welcome the proposals giving consumers more powers as regards public services. In improving and reforming public services, it is vital that service users are at the heart of the debate.
Finally, on part 4, one of the most significant legal changes pursued by the previous Labour Government was the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, and measures that strengthen FOI legislation are very welcome. In our 2015 manifesto, we have committed ourselves to extending freedom of information to cover the delivery of public services by private companies. If taxpayers’ money is being spent, I see no reason why the same standards should not apply, whether the service is delivered publicly or under contract by the private or voluntary sectors. That is a very important principle of openness and transparency.
I have taken my five minutes so I shall conclude by once again congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on his private Member’s Bill and thanking him for the opportunity to consider, albeit briefly, some very important issues.
Rights and Protection of Victims
Stephen Twigg Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate this important draft European Union directive. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who have been affected by crimes elsewhere in the EU, and I want to take this opportunity to share with the House the case of my constituents, Lesley and Steve Dunne, which highlights the very serious shortcomings in current practice and legislation.
I echo the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. As he said, we want proper support that reflects our modern and civilised state. He also said that we should require a directive to be both proportionate and properly targeted, and I very much agree with him on that. Mr and Mrs Dunne were badly let down by the legal system in Spain. They had lived there and their son Gary was murdered there in 2006. It took the family three years to have their son’s body repatriated to the United Kingdom. Throughout their campaign to have his body returned, Mr and Mrs Dunne, whom I now count as good friends, showed great courage, fortitude and incredible dignity in the face of the many barriers and hurdles to securing what most families would take for granted—being able to bury their son.
The draft directive before the House will go some way to addressing some of the problems that they faced and that other families have faced as well. It seeks to ensure that member states recognise that, where a person’s death has been caused by a criminal offence, the family members are to be defined as victims. Mr and Mrs Dunne were not treated with the respect that the House would expect for the parents of a murdered son. The Secretary of State was right that in many regards this country is at the forefront of best practice in the treatment of victims. We have a long way to go, but compared with the experience in Spain that I am outlining, we are well advanced. The draft directive sets a minimum standard for access to information and support. If this is adopted successfully across the EU, I sincerely hope that other families affected by the death of a loved one in Europe will not have to endure what Mr and Mrs Dunne have.
Steve and Lee Dunne learned of their son’s murder not from the Spanish or British authorities, but from a friend in Spain who had heard of the murderer’s arrest not from the Spanish authorities, but from another friend who had read about it in the local press. When Steve and Lee received a call from the authorities informing them that the perpetrator had been arrested, they flew immediately to Spain in the belief that it meant that Gary’s body could be repatriated for a funeral in their home city of Liverpool. This was not the case, however. They flew to Spain, where they discovered that they had been called there simply for the courts to ask them whether they wanted the suspect prosecuted. The suspect had fled Spain to evade capture.
Mr and Mrs Dunne were appalled. They had not been properly advised of the reason they had been called to Spain. As far as they were concerned, of course they wanted their son’s alleged murderer to face justice in a Spanish court. I hope that the provisions on information and support in the draft directive will ensure that in the future clear information will be given to families in similar situations. This lack of access to information was compounded by the absence of officially provided translators or interpreters during the prosecution. I am pleased therefore that this specific issue is covered in the draft directive. Lee and Steve ended up having to hire translators and interpreters at their own expense, which has contributed to them incurring costs of about £40,000 to run their ultimately successful campaign to secure Gary’s repatriation. I will return to that point in a moment.
This lack of financial support was exacerbated by the lack of victim support. Legal aid was neither offered nor available. No counselling or bereavement support was available to help the family through what inevitably was a difficult and traumatic time.
That the draft directive seeks to treat the families of murder victims as victims themselves is a welcome recognition of the very real personal dangers that families can be exposed to when they pursue prosecution in other countries. Mr and Mrs Dunne certainly felt that their safety was at risk on a number of occasions during the judicial process in Spain. For example, unpleasant threats were made by acquaintances of the accused during the proceedings, and they felt that there was a lack of support and information about what was going on throughout the trial.
Steve and Lee have not received financial support from the Spanish authorities towards meeting the costs that they incurred in their attempts to repatriate their late son’s body. Members of the public in this country, particularly in Liverpool, have given generously in donations, which have offered some assistance to the family, but as I said earlier, they incurred significant costs of more than £40,000 simply trying to secure the burial of their son. They eventually learned that they had been granted compensation by the Spanish court of £125,000, to be paid by the perpetrator, but they did not find out about it until two years after the ruling had been made to award the compensation. So far, they have received less than £1,500 of the £125,000 that they were granted, and the payments have now stopped.
This highlights two problems that are addressed by the draft directive. The first is the very limited progress that has been made in getting the compensation to the family; I shall return to that matter later. The second is the fact that the information channels were so poor that they did not find out about the granting of the compensation until two years after the decision, in a period in which the family was struggling financially owing to having had to raise the money to fight their case to have their son’s body returned.
Mr and Mrs Dunne came to London to visit Parliament earlier today, in advance of tonight’s debate. They asked me to describe their ordeal in this way to demonstrate the appalling shortcomings in the system. They are tireless campaigners whose drive, courage and determination to prevent any other family from going through what they went through are an inspiration to us all. As well as campaigning on the issues that we are discussing this evening, they have visited schools across Merseyside to educate young people about the dangers of knife crime.
Gary Dunne’s body was ultimately returned for a family funeral in Liverpool in 2009. On behalf of the family, I place on record their appreciation of the hard work of the Member of the European Parliament for North West England, Arlene McCarthy, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), both of whom raised Gary’s case consistently throughout the family’s ordeal. They raised the case with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who responded to the campaign by raising Mr and Mrs Dunne’s situation directly with the Spanish Prime Minister, Señor Zapatero, who intervened personally. That intervention resulted in the repatriation of Gary’s body. That was clearly a welcome development for the Dunne family, but it cannot be right that they had to go through three years of heartache before they could bury their son, or that they secured his repatriation only after a vigorous campaign that culminated in the British Prime Minister raising the case with his Spanish counterpart.
Last October, I raised the case with the present Prime Minister, and I was delighted that he agreed to meet Mr and Mrs Dunne. That meeting took place in January this year, when they had the opportunity to raise with him the changes that they wished to see that would ensure that no other family would have to go through what they had been through. They told the Prime Minister about their long-fought struggle and about both the shortcomings that I have described in the Spanish system and the shortcomings in the British consular services, in terms of the support offered to them and other families affected by the loss of a loved one overseas, and in particular in the European Union, which is what we are addressing this evening. It was a positive meeting, and the Prime Minister agreed to address those shortcomings, suggesting that there may be opportunities for a pilot scheme for improved consular services. Mr and Mrs Dunne agreed that their case could be used as a test case—an example case—to set up training programmes to ensure that British consular services give sufficient support to British families on the ground, particularly given that those families are themselves victims, as the directive describes them.
As the Secretary of State said, the proposed directive seeks to address the shortcomings in the current 2001 Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. I know that Members from across the House will be moved by the case of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Dunne, whose treatment throughout the past five years has been truly appalling. An opt-in to the directive would go some way towards ensuring that others do not go through similar experiences in future. Not all the issues that have affected Mr and Mrs Dunne are covered by the draft directive. Some of them relate to United Kingdom policy in practice—I have referred to consular support. Frankly, some of them are challenges for Spain—for Spanish law and Spanish practice on the repatriation of bodies, compensation and access to justice. I will be seeking a meeting with the Spanish ambassador in London to press for Mr and Mrs Dunne’s compensation to be paid in full and immediately.
I welcome the opportunity to share the appalling experience of my constituents Mr and Mrs Dunne with the House this evening and to pay tribute to them for their campaign, their fortitude and how they have turned their grief into something positive, so that other families do not have to go through what they went through. I thank the Government for giving me this opportunity to address this important subject.
Police
Stephen Twigg Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2011-12 (House of Commons Paper No. 771), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
As well as seeking the House’s approval for the grant, I want to explain why this settlement for the police is necessary, challenging but manageable, and how the Government are helping the service to meet the challenge.
On 13 December, I laid before the House the Government’s proposed allocations of grants to police authorities in England and Wales. Following that, the Government held a six-week consultation on the proposed allocation of funding, during which 34 representations were received from across 20 force areas. I would like to thank hon. Members, members of police forces, police authorities and other policing organisations across the country for taking the time to share their views on the provisional settlement. Their comments have been considered carefully and fully.
Having inherited the largest peacetime deficit in Britain’s history, the Government had no option but to reduce public spending, and a police service that spends more than £13 billion a year cannot be exempt from a requirement to save public money. The October spending review set the overall cut in funding at 20% in real terms over four years, and it set the profile of the reduction. I accept that the settlement is challenging, but the Government believe that it is manageable, and that if savings are made in the right areas the service to the public can be maintained and, indeed, improved.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that the settlement is challenging. Does he accept that it is more challenging for some forces than for others, and that a force in Merseyside depends far more on central Government grant than a force in Surrey, which raises half its funds locally? Will he consider, for the purpose of future years, looking again at an issue that is causing great concern in my constituency?
Nick Herbert
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s observation that different forces raise different amounts from local taxpayers, and I shall deal with it shortly. I remain open-minded about the issue, given that the report relates to allocations for the next two years.
Nick Herbert
There are two answers to that. First, forces on average receive a quarter of their funding from local taxpayers, so it does not make sense to consider only the amount that they receive from central Government. What matters to a force is its total spending power, and it is hardly disreputable to take that into account. Secondly, although I do not disagree with the conclusions of the important report of the inspectorate of constabulary—with which I will deal shortly—I think it possible, as I will explain, to make savings that were beyond the remit of its report.
I am pleased that Opposition Members apparently agree with the policy of the inspectorate of constabulary that forces can save more than £1 billion a year without affecting the front line and while protecting visibility, because that is very important.
Stephen Twigg
I understand the Minister’s explanation, which, in a sense, constitutes a fuller response to my earlier point, but may I urge him to reconsider in future years? The main reason for the contrast between the sources of funding for forces in, say, Merseyside and Surrey is the fact that Merseyside has a higher level of social and economic deprivation. In recent years, council tax payers in my constituency have paid more for the police and have not experienced a freeze, but in practice they will experience a much bigger cut than those in Surrey.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his rather predictable intervention, but immediately before it I was explaining—he clearly was not listening—why the Government are having to take these decisions. He and the former Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench must accept responsibility for that.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), because we expect the Opposition to come forward with some solutions, but during her speech I detected only one sentence in which she referred to the £1 billion of cuts that they would make and said that they would do something about back-office functions and procurement. So that is the Opposition’s solution. That is the one sentence that the Opposition’s spokesperson provided, stating how they, if in government, would have resolved the problems that we face.
Stephen Twigg
Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that, in that one sentence—I think it was more than one sentence—of my right hon. Friend’s speech, she referred specifically to the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary? The figure is not one that we have plucked off the top of our heads; it is based on the HMIC’s view of the savings that can be made without damaging front-line services.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course he is right, and the Government have based their measures on the HMIC report as well, but people who read and listen to this debate will want to hear exactly what impact HMIC’s recommendations, if implemented, will have on, for example, staff numbers, a point to which the official Opposition’s spokesperson did not respond. She ducked and dived on that point.
The Opposition can pretend that the £40 billion of cuts that they intended making, including 20% cuts throughout Departments, would have gone unnoticed, would have had no impact on front-line services and would have left police forces throughout the country unscathed, but we know, they know and people outside know that that is completely untrue.
There is no point disguising the fact that the settlement is tough. That is true, and it impacts on police budgets. As the Minister said, in 2011-12 there is a 4% reduction in cash terms. In 2012-13, there is a 5% reduction, but, thanks to the HMIC report and the measures that police forces are already taking throughout the country, much of the reduction can be made through greater efficiency.
Police forces are already delivering many examples of such efficiency. In one local example, Sutton and Merton police forces are looking at sharing a custody suite, and if successful in those two force areas, the idea might be rolled out across the whole Met police force area and in others further afield. That is exactly the sort of measure that police forces and police authorities should pursue.
The Minister quite rightly identified what is possible through IT systems savings and, as I said in an intervention, we can derive not only cash savings from that source, but great improvements in efficiency and the likelihood of resolving cases, as the communications problems between different systems are addressed.
One issue that I raised in the previous debate, and on which I hope the Minister has had time to do some work, is training for senior officers. The HMIC report identifies that there was no commonly held belief that those officers needed a detailed understanding of how to ensure that the efficiency savings—the mergers—took place effectively. The Government, HMIC or others might be able to assist with training to ensure that officers are equipped to take such tough decisions, because there are real differences between forces’ proposals.
Some forces are coming forward with a headline figure for the number of officers they are going to cut, while others are coming forward with a range of options—particularly on back-office and procurement—that could identify significant savings without the need to cut staff numbers, which some forces seem to have gone for as the first rather than the last resort.
I want to raise some specific Met issues. The Minister will be aware that the force has not yet taken a decision to cut sergeant numbers by 300; it is considering the idea, but it says it
“will be directed by final analysis and must reflect operational delivery.”
I urge the Met to maintain those officer numbers, but if that is not possible, to look at some of the proposals that I mentioned, particularly on sharing back-office functions, joint custody suites and the like to ensure that the number of police officers in the safer neighbourhood teams is maintained at the level at which it is currently set.
Equally, as I said earlier, safer neighbourhood teams may be undertaking tasks that are not their responsibility. I mentioned the example of drive-outs from petrol stations, which are taking up an inordinate amount of time in the case of at least one of my safer neighbourhood teams. After I raised that case, the local force have asked to meet me to discuss it as a wider issue, so it clearly affects not just one safer neighbourhood team but several in the borough. If a large proportion of their time is spent trying to deal with a problem that the petrol companies should be able to resolve technologically, we should look at the issue carefully to try to free up officer time to concentrate on things that really do need police intervention.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
No Labour Member would argue with the contention that there is always scope for efficiency in public services, including the police service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about the HMIC report, as did the Minister. Our opposition to what the Government are planning is based on the sheer scale of the cuts to the police service that are set out. My additional argument, on which I will elaborate and on which I intervened on the Minister, is that there is unfairness in the allocation of those cuts as between different police forces around the country.
I should like to comment on the work that Merseyside police are doing. As in the case, I imagine, of most, if not all hon. Members on both sides of the House, crime and antisocial behaviour are consistently the biggest issues that my constituents raise with me on the doorstep, in surveys, in correspondence and at surgeries. In recent years, Merseyside police have faced some very serious challenges. Merseyside is No. 1 of any police force in the country in terms of the number of drug offences. I am therefore very concerned about the impact of cuts that are being made to the UK Border Agency, as well as cuts to local government and voluntary sector services for those with drug addiction.
In other areas, Merseyside has made truly remarkable progress in recent years. In 2005-06, it was the third highest police force in the country for violent crime, with a rate of 25.6 offences per 1,000 population. Thanks to the hard work of the police, including their work with the local community, that rate has halved over the past five years to 13 per 1,000, putting us 22nd in England, which puts it in the lower half of police forces. That is truly remarkable progress. Every indication that I have is that Merseyside police are determined to continue that progress, even in the context of the cuts that we are discussing.
Almost four years ago in what is now my constituency, there was the tragic murder of Rhys Jones. His death provided the context for a greater focus on crime, including violent crime, in Liverpool and across Merseyside. In considering the way forward for Merseyside and the fairness, or rather unfairness, of the proposed cuts, everyone in my constituency is concerned to ensure that never again do we see the tragedy of what happened to young Rhys. The police responded brilliantly and with great professionalism in that case, which resulted in serious convictions by the courts for those who murdered Rhys Jones.
Already in 2010-11, 200 police officer jobs and 80 police staff jobs are being lost in Merseyside. There is a moratorium on further recruitment, which will continue into next year. The police have estimated that by March 2012—in just over a year’s time—we will have lost almost 10% of police officer posts in Merseyside. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about chief constables making every effort to ensure that losing police officer posts is a last resort. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that some chief constables were treating it as their first resort. I very much doubt that that is the case in any authority. I can say with certainty that it is not the case in Merseyside, where the chief constable, whom I and other Liverpool MPs met in the House a couple of weeks ago, has made every effort to maximise efficiencies and minimise the direct impact on local people through the loss of police officers.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke about inconvenient facts. Last year, the Liberal Democrats in Greater Manchester, and no doubt in Merseyside, went into the election knowing about the deficit and promising more, not fewer, police. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have a duty to apologise to our constituents for giving a false impression of what they would do in office?
Stephen Twigg
Absolutely; I concur with my hon. Friend. Of course, that is not the only promise that the Liberal Democrats made to the British people last May that they have broken. They made that promise knowing, as my hon. Friend said, what the Budget position was. It was a deeply irresponsible pledge to make.
Stephen Twigg
The figures were very much in the public domain. To be fair to the Conservative party, it did say that it would prioritise cuts. There is a specific issue about the Liberal Democrats having said one thing in opposition and saying the complete opposite now that they are part of the coalition Government.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I will not focus the rest of my speech on Liberal Democrat broken promises, but the case has been very well made.
I intervened on the Minister to raise the question of the fairness of the distribution of the cuts. He set out the consultation process in some detail, and entirely understandably set out that the forces and authorities that would lose out if there were some attempt to protect those that were more reliant on central Government funding had lobbied against that. I appreciate what he said about the nature of the formula and the difficulty of changing it, and clearly the cuts relate to the original formula. Unfortunately, I am not suggesting that that can be changed quickly, but I repeat what I said in my intervention: I hope that the Government will consider the matter as we move forward.
Looking at the estimated police budget figures that the Library has produced, we see that in the forthcoming financial year, 2011-12, Merseyside’s estimated police budget, taking into account local revenue raising as well as central Government funding, will be cut by 5.8% whereas Surrey’s cut will be 3.7%. There is every indication that that gap will apply again in the following year and therefore have a cumulative effect.
In Merseyside, there have consistently been increases in the police authority precept over recent years. The local police authority has not thought, “We’re getting all this money from central Government, so we can let our council tax payers off and freeze the precept or have only a modest increase.” There have been significant increases in the amount contributed by council tax payers in Merseyside to the funding of the police. The basic reality is that on average, people in Merseyside are poorer than people in Surrey. The reason why Merseyside’s local police depend more on central Government funding than others is primarily to do with deprivation. That point applies also to other authorities, and when there are cuts on the scale that we are seeing, it is a cause for great concern. To his credit, the Minister undertook earlier to consider the matter again in future. Perhaps I might ask that he meet Merseyside MPs at his early convenience to discuss those concerns.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister nods, so I am delighted to accept that we can have that meeting.
Clearly, the cuts will have an impact on forces right across the country, but that impact will differ. When there are spending cuts on such a scale, it is incumbent on the Government to consider the unfairness of those different impacts. There is clearly a need for savings in public expenditure on the police, and HMIC has considered the matter in great detail and come up with the quoted figure of 12%. My contention today is, first, that by going so significantly above that figure, the Government will inevitably damage the police service across the country; secondly, that the effects are not fair or consistent but differ for the reasons that I have given; and thirdly, that those effects are compounded by the impact of other cuts in public spending, particularly local government cuts.
Merseyside police receives direct funding from Liverpool and other local authorities for aspects of its work on antisocial behaviour. I hope that the councils will be able to protect that funding, but I am not confident that they will be fully able to do so. On top of the cuts that we are discussing today, Liverpool’s police force and others around the country will therefore lose further funding for some of the important partnership work that they do on tackling antisocial behaviour.
I urge the Government to think again, and I urge Home Office Ministers to press the Treasury to give policing and law and order the priority that the Government have given schools and the national health service. Voters—our constituents—would expect us to give the police service that priority, and I hope that in the light of today’s debate, the Government will do so.