Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered tackling aggressive antisocial behaviour.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. For seven years, the standard response of Ministers to any question or doubt about crime and antisocial behaviour has been an assurance that crime is falling. Those of us who ventured that police budgets were being cut too deep and too fast, exposing areas such as the west midlands to severe grant reductions, have been brushed aside. I have lost track of the number of Ministers who think that all is solved by the stock answer that crime is falling.

It is certainly true that the crime survey for England and Wales provides a valuable picture of long-term trends for certain types of offences, but it does not necessarily capture the picture on the ground for other types of crime, so it is wrong for Ministers to rely on those statistics to the exclusion of all else. The fear that dominates the daily lives of real people and their families is not addressed when Ministers issue such a stock reply.

Estimates are especially unreliable when it comes to particular types of offences and, as a consequence, we frequently underestimate certain crimes. Sexual offences and child sexual exploitation, about which we are beginning to learn much more, are good examples of underestimated crimes. Antisocial behaviour almost certainly also falls into that category. Until 2015, the headline figures also excluded fraud and computer misuse. When those figures are added, the number of crimes rises from around 5.9 million to around 11 million, which suggests that there is even less room for complacency.

Not that long ago there were major debates about the need to improve the quality of police recording of crime. When recording is done properly, we have a more reliable measure to assess recent or current trends. In the last year alone, police recorded crime increased by 10%—the biggest year-on-year rise in a decade—which includes a 20% surge in knife and gun crime. That rise is actually accelerating; a 3% increase in the year to March 2015 was followed by an 8% rise in 2016.

Turning to antisocial behaviour, most people think of their home as their sanctuary, their castle, and the place where the troubles of the external world can be set aside, if only for a short time. But what if home is not like that? What if, because of aggressive antisocial behaviour, intimidation, threats and harassment, a person’s home becomes just another place of risk and fear—a place where they can be subjected to deliberate and intolerable levels of noise, and where dangerous and uncontrolled dogs are allowed to run free, threatening children? What if walking a few hundred yards to or from their own front door risks a confrontation and potential assault? What if the immediate vicinity of their home is plagued by thugs with motorcycles, who constantly congregate outside or nearby?

According to some reports, there has been a 1% decrease in antisocial behaviour incidents. I find that impossible to believe. Try telling my constituents that antisocial behaviour is declining. As far back as 2012, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported concerns about the wide variation in the quality of decision making associated with the recording of antisocial behaviour by police forces. That resulted in a review, but as budgets are increasingly stretched, I find it hard to believe that there has been a vastly improved focus on tackling antisocial behaviour. We are talking about offences including vehicle and bike-related crime, vandalism, criminal damage, graffiti, nuisance neighbours and extensive intimidation, involving threats, verbal abuse and domination of whole neighbourhoods.

Not only do Ministers say that crime is falling but they regularly tell us that they have protected police funding. That is simply not the case. The reality is that the central Government grant remains largely the same, and the shortfall in police budgets has been transferred to the council tax precept. Analysis by the Library tells us that since 2010, police expenditure from tax and grants has fallen by 5% in cash terms and 13% in real terms.

The National Audit Office has pointed out the effect of that sleight of hand: the force areas most affected by funding reductions are those that are most reliant on the police grant. Four of the five forces that are most dependent on the central Government grant—all, incidentally, in the midlands and the north—are those experiencing the worst overall budget reductions. I am sure that the Government understand perfectly well that economically depressed areas with a relatively low council tax base are not capable of making up for the loss of central grant, even if they raise the council tax precept to the maximum permitted level.

In the west midlands, which is one of the hardest hit areas, we have faced cuts of £130 million since 2010—the highest proportion in the whole country. In 2017-18, we have suffered a further £6 million budget cut. The chief constable has recently been forced to point out that policing will “break” unless forces are given “real terms protection”. In Northumbria, the chief constable has said that his force is close to no longer being able to provide a professional service. The chief constable of Avon and Somerset police said:

“We now face a tipping point. We cannot sustain further funding cuts without extremely serious consequences.”

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents and the city of Birmingham. The West Midlands police service has suffered a real-terms cut of £18 million this year. The chief constable has warned that the force is stretched to the limit. The police and crime commissioner has said that call-out times are getting longer; they are now up to 24 hours for 999 calls about domestic violence, and the police often do not turn out at all to deal with antisocial behaviour, although it is said to be very serious. Does my hon. Friend agree that the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of their citizens, and that it is absolutely wrong that the Government have cut 2,000 police officers from the West Midlands police service, putting the public at risk?

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Do you want 20 seconds to wind up?

[Steve McCabe]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I thought not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tackling aggressive anti-social behaviour.

Scotland: Demography and Devolution

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister is giving me a thumbs up, so we can expect him to address the matter in his reply.

I will finish my speech because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. We will always be fighting a losing battle if we cannot grow our population through immigration. Our report calls for the Government to give us a chance, give us a break, and consider devolving some immigration powers to Scotland to let us grow our population. If the Minister and the UK Government do not do so, they will be holding Scotland’s hands behind its back, because the population gap between us and the rest of the United Kingdom will have massive implications for our economy and our ability to provide proper social services in Scotland. Population and demographic issues will be central to social planning, healthy economic outcomes and growth over the next decade, but Scotland has a UK-wide immigration policy designed by the Minister and his colleagues that practically works against our vital national interests. If there is one thing that the Government can do to help us to address those issues, it is to give us the levers to address them.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I am sure that we all wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

Like the Minister, I came to the Bill towards the end, but I am happy to claim credit just like him. Let me say right at the beginning that the Bill has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, cross-party support, but the House will forgive me if I put on record some of the reservations still raised by important stakeholders.

The first thing I would like to remind the House of is that there is a case before the European Court of Justice that involves the Home Secretary. It is brought by, among other distinguished persons, the deputy leader of the Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). It relates to the predecessor legislation to the Bill—the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. It seems clear from the interim judgment delivered by the advocate-general on 19 July this year that key sections of DRIPA will be struck down. It is clear that the Bill has even more widely drawn powers and has fewer safeguards and mechanisms for judicial oversight. The logical conclusion —we cannot say at this point what will happen—is that the powers in the Bill may well be among the shortest-lived in parliamentary history, as they may be struck down at the European Court of Justice, and that court proceedings would almost immediately follow Royal Assent.

Among the issues that have been raised with us during the passage of the Bill by stakeholders are access to internet records and the nature of the judicial safeguards; the protection of data, and the rights of journalists to protect their sources; the lack of powers to refer issues to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal; and insufficient checks on the sharing of data between agencies. There is no right of disclosure to the target and not necessarily a duty to provide information to the service provider. There is also the concern—it may be a theoretical concern, but it is a real one for many stakeholders—about the potential abuse of these investigatory powers by state agencies.

A wide number of interest groups and stakeholders have told Opposition Members that the powers in the Bill are perhaps a little disproportionate in relation to the objectives. The Society of Editors, the National Union of Journalists, with the backing of the TUC, and many others concerned with the freedom of the press have raised valid and important objections to the Bill, which, despite the best efforts of Members on both sides of the House—particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—have not been fully addressed in the parliamentary process. Among the issues that have been raised with me is the ability of journalists to protect their sources.

Another concern, which should also be a concern for Members, is the protection of whistleblowers, who have played an important role in public life, whether at Addenbrooke’s or at other hospitals. The concern is that public bodies, by being able to identify internet records—without, as we know, examining the content—may be able to identify the whistleblowers. There is a measure of judicial oversight. However, many stakeholders have said to us that judicial oversight of data access, gathering and retention is not as strong as they would like. The absence of review proceedings has been raised with us as another troubling aspect of the Bill.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite these reservations, the almost 300 amendments that the Government were forced to table on Report give us much greater safeguards in the exercise of these powers and a much greater capacity to scrutinise whether they are being used properly, with clear avenues for challenge where people are tempted to misuse them, all of which was absent before these changes?

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his, as usual, very wise observation. There is no question but that the amendments that the Government have been forced to table, and the work of Members on both sides of the House, have made this a much better Bill than the one that was originally presented to this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

The Government have an absolute zero-tolerance policy for any sort of domestic abuse or violence. I will certainly take up the hon. Lady’s recommendation of speaking to my colleagues in the Department of Health to see what more we can do to prevent this awful crime from happening to our much-appreciated nurses.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

10. What estimate she has made of the number of non-UK EU nationals currently residing in the UK who will be entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

The Government have been clear that they want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return.

[Steve McCabe]

My question was what estimate the Secretary of State had made of the numbers, because on 10 October her colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that by the time we leave, five out of six migrants will have, or be entitled to, indefinite leave to remain. That is 2.5 million people. Is that the policy of the Government?

[Amber Rudd]

I saw those reports. They were based on existing public research, which estimates that around 80% of EU migrants already here will have been resident in the UK for up to five years by the start of 2019. However, it is too simplistic and too early to reach definitive conclusions about what the outcome will be when we do leave.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T10. Should I understand from the Home Secretary’s earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that it is her intention that the relatives of those killed in the Birmingham pub bombings should have access to legal representation at the fresh inquests?

[Amber Rudd]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has got a little ahead of the meeting I am having this afternoon in order to address exactly that proposal, so no decision has been made yet.

Terrorist Attack: Nice

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I cannot give him the exact number at the moment, but I can tell him that we have made good progress, and that I will write to him with that number.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May I wish the right hon. Lady well in her appointment? With many British citizens due to take part in Battle of the Somme events this year, will she do all she can to ensure that visits go ahead and that we have good co-operation with our French allies so that British people taking part can be safe and secure?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is essential that such events go on, particularly when we are remembering something like the Battle of the Somme—the scale of the massacre there puts some of the difficulties that we have here in perspective. I will indeed engage with my French counterpart to ensure that we do all that we can to give France the support that it needs to keep everybody safe.

Border Force Budget 2016-17

Steve McCabe Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have said, we now have a Border Force that is more flexible and that is able to use its resources appropriately. The director general is continually looking to ensure that resources are appropriate at ports and commensurate with the traffic that they are experiencing. He rightly praises the Border Force officers at Gatwick who, along with those elsewhere, do an excellent job.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

When will the Home Secretary make a statement on allegations that lapses under her watch allowed terrorists Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Mohamed Abrini to breach this country’s border security?

[Mrs May]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, in terms of border security and stopping people crossing the border, what is important is not just that we have a border control, as we do by not being a member of the Schengen border-free zone, but that information is exchanged between the parties when that is available. That is exactly what we are working on to ensure that information is available at our borders when we want to be able to stop people.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion, which I will take up with the Secretary of State for Transport. We will look at the issue.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is believed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was responsible for the Paris attacks, comes from the Molenbeek district of Brussels. I understand that he was able to visit Birmingham last October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that he did visit the UK? Does she know who accompanied him? Can she rule out that it was anyone associated with the present atrocity?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to refer to people who were involved in the current atrocity that has taken place in Brussels. This is obviously an ongoing investigation, and we are working very closely with the Belgian authorities to ascertain as much information as possible about the individuals involved.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear that I believe that our police and security services must have the necessary powers to protect us from terrorists and to disrupt, prevent and apprehend organised criminals, and that it is necessary to equip them with the proper legal powers to intercept communications and acquire information about the activities of those who would do us harm.

I am aware that in the west midlands there is a threat to our way of life. I was shocked to see figures from the National Police Chiefs Council which claimed that more than 400 children had been referred to a de-radicalisation programme over the past four years, and I am conscious of reports that the ringleader of the horrific Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, visited Birmingham just months before spearheading the carnage in Paris, so I do not underestimate the risks. Under normal conditions I would come to the House to defend the Government and support their aims, but if it were not for the seriousness of these matters, I query whether this deficient Bill deserves a Second Reading today.

I do not accept that in a liberal democratic society we can let any Government have carte blanche to instigate surveillance powers across whole communities of innocent people. Where we permit the extensive use of surveillance, it must be subject to the strictest scrutiny and controls; otherwise, what is our purpose? The Bill before us does not have anything like enough safeguards and it is drawn far too wide. Unless it is substantially modified, I would be doing a disservice to the people who elected me if I did not challenge it.

I agree with the Intelligence and Security Committee report that

“privacy protections should form the backbone of the draft legislation”.

It is an insult to the British people that the Government think that inserting the word “privacy” into the title of part 1 addresses such a fundamental concern. The Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to issue national security or technical capability notices requiring the recipients to take such steps as the Home Secretary considers necessary. This is, in effect, Parliament writing a blank cheque. Measures such as national security notices should be limited to emergencies. They should not be capable of being used on fishing expeditions.

On internet connection records, I agree with David Anderson that a “compelling operational case” should be made. As a result of the proposals in the Bill, the UK will be the only country in the world to have a policy of capturing and recording every citizen’s internet use. We will be the envy of states such as North Korea, China and Iran. The Government are planning to have a full record of an individual’s contact history, whether that individual is under suspicion or not. The idea that agencies will be allowed to combine information from a variety of sources—everything from our Nectar card to our library card and medical records—is intolerable.

We need substantial changes to this Bill so that the genuine powers that the police and security services need to protect us are available in legal form, and our civil liberties are recognised in law and cannot be misused.

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that the Leader of the Opposition said that that was simply not the case. There is no change whatever to long-established policy when it comes to the police keeping the public safe.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the cuts, the 4.6% police precept rise in the west midlands, which was apparently negotiated by the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood), amounts to nothing more than local people paying more money for less police?

[Andy Burnham]

The Government are cutting the police at national level, making local people in the west midlands—and in Greater Manchester too—pick up the bill, but people are getting less in terms of police on their streets. We know, do we not, that the Government are very good at making cuts in urban areas such as Greater Manchester and the west midlands and at taking money elsewhere. That is the reality: our constituents will be paying more for less. The Chancellor and the Home Secretary have broken their police promise to our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

We have heard this evening about crime going up, workloads going up, police numbers going down and police support staff numbers going down. HMIC reports that neighbourhood policing is suffering. The Government cannot cull 35,000 posts from the police service and seek to maintain the protection of the public without any impact. The obvious impact of doing that is to put the public at risk. We need more resources to protect neighbourhood policing, not fewer.

HMIC recognises that neighbourhood policing is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has said, the cornerstone of crime prevention. That is something that the front-line police service have been telling Government for years. Neighbourhood policing enables officers to serve the public, remain vigilant to threats, gather the most accurate intelligence about terrorism and gain crucial local-to-global intelligence, whether for use in the fight against terror or the fight against child sexual exploitation.

To turn specifically to Wales, a really concerning picture is developing. Last week, HMIC concluded in its report that Dyfed-Powys police could do more to keep people safe and to reduce crime. Its report on police effectiveness found that the approach to investigating crimes and supporting the vulnerable and victims required improvement. It also highlighted Dyfed-Powys’s allocation of complex crimes, sexual offences and high-risk domestic abuse to officers who did not have adequate training.

Across Wales, we have seen a reduction of 783 police officers and even more support staff. Those cuts are akin to wiping three quarters of the entire Gwent police force off the face of the map. Police are now going back into offices to do administrative work. Such work has to be done and cannot be ignored—it is crucial to how policing works—but police officers need to be on the streets to build trust and relationships with local communities.

In Wales, the Welsh Government have created 500 PCSOs not to replace police officers, but to backfill the gaps left by the 20% cuts to policing imposed by the Government since 2010. HMIC has stated that cuts should not be more than 12%, but that has been ignored by the previous coalition and the current Government. The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice has said that

“Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners have no excuse whatsoever not to deliver at least good quality policing in their areas.”

I think that they have every excuse, given the cuts to their budgets. South Wales police, in my own area, will have a cash cut of nearly £3.5 million in real terms in its budget for 2016-17, compared with last year.

The police are now spread so thinly that they are struggling to act as eyes and ears on our streets, which undermines their ability to do their job. At the same time, the Home Secretary is talking about risks to national security and the threat from terrorism is at an extreme level.

[Steve McCabe]

I agree with my hon. Friend that such threats are multiplying. The Home Secretary suggested earlier that crime was down and all was well, but she seems to have overlooked the fact that violent crime is actually rising and that in some parts of the country—Birmingham, for example—gun crime is rampant. Is this not the wrong time to cut special resources for policing?