Assisted Dying

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

To get everyone in, I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. If there are interventions, not everyone will have a chance to make a speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I would rather the right hon. Gentleman did not, actually.

[Lucy Allan]

My right hon. Friend says that this debate is about suicide, but I wonder whether he has a family member, as I have, who took their own life through suicide, and whether he understands the difference between that and what we are talking about today?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I have not had a family member do that, but we have all encountered friends and relatives who have been under intolerable pressure. Hon. Members have cited examples, and I can do so too.

I simply take a very pro-life point of view. It is not from my religious conviction or my belief that everybody is beautiful and wonderful, however small, however tiny in the womb, however old or frail, how much of a burden they are, whether they are a convicted murder or whether they are one of our military enemies. I take a pro-life view, and I think so much of the misery in the world in the last 100 years has been because people are casual about taking life. Many of the arguments that we hear in favour of assisted dying are based on very appalling, horrible and extreme cases. They are similar arguments to what we heard when we had the initial debates on abortion, with foetal abnormality, rape and all the other things. Then we had abortion on demand, and now we are going to get death on demand. That is what it is all about. All the pressure, particularly on the frail and vulnerable, will be about that.

I want to make a theological point. A friend of mine died in the first months of covid. He died in agony. He died in a part of the country where he was sent out of hospital because the medical profession was panicking. He was not given adequate palliative care and he died in agony. It was appalling. We are all agreed that we are still not doing enough about palliative care. We have to do much more. We have to tell everybody that they have the right to go into a hospice—a right that so many people are not given—and receive the full benefit of modern medical technology to die peacefully and painlessly. For the overwhelming majority of people, if they are given palliative care, it is an option they can enjoy.

I actually watched another friend of mine die. He was my best friend and former colleague in this House. He was dying of terminal cancer; I was sitting beside him and I could see the morphine pumping through his wrists. He died peacefully and painlessly, but I have no doubt that it was the morphine that killed him. Theologically, morally and legally, there is nothing against a doctor helping me to die by pumping morphine into me, even if that is the immediate cause of my death. [Interruption.] I can see people shaking their heads, but I have actually seen it happen. Is there anyone in this room who would blame a doctor who helped someone to die if they were in agony? The doctor was not trying to kill them—they were trying to ease the pain. And in easing the pain by delivering that amount of morphine, that might have hastened their demise.

Let us be realistic about it. Let us try to take a pro-life view, and let us remember—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Wera Hobhouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr McCabe. I have been contacted by many constituents eager for me to engage on this matter, but I make my contribution also as someone who has experienced the loss of a loved one through suicide and as someone who has witnessed at first hand his mother wrestle with a chronic degenerative disease, Parkinson’s, which ultimately claimed her life.

It seems to me that already in this debate clear positions are emerging. A summary, which I offer humbly for colleagues to consider, is the saying, “We shape the law and the law shapes us”, because on one side I hear arguments for the former, and on the other for the latter. On one side, I hear story after moving story of suffering—not least from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), whom I thank for introducing the debate—and on the other, I hear concern for the impact that these laws would have on others.

I want to start by just thinking briefly about the importance of language, because today’s debate is looking at the e-petition relating to “assisted dying”, but that is an undefined term, without clear meaning. It does have the attraction of a blank canvas, in that we can ascribe to it whatever meaning we may desire, but it should also give us cause for caution. The proactive ending of one’s own life, by consent or otherwise, in law is suicide—in this case, presumably, by the self-administration of lethal drugs. The House of Commons Library’s own briefing note adopts the term “assisted suicide” in order to reflect the law. Therefore, another title for this debate, which would reflect where we actually start from, might have been, “Debate on e-petition relating to assisted suicide”. I think that this is an important place to start—not to cause offence or distress and not for any obstacle that it may present, but simply because it is where we are. We cannot start in some place yet to be defined, where some may wish us to be one day.

There are many terminally ill people—those without name and number, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said—who want to live and who need to know that society wants them to live. They want and need to feel valued. They need to feel safe. A move towards an assisted suicide society risks introducing an obligation on an individual who is terminally ill to seek or consider an assisted death through lethal drugs, and suggests that it may even be their moral duty to do so. We cannot simply dismiss that unintended consequence. Assisted suicide legislation has the potential to create exactly that powerful counter-narrative of a duty to society or family and loved ones to remove the inconvenience, the burden and the cost. That is not a message I believe we should send or have bound into the fabric of our society through law; nor is it a duty that should bind those in the caring profession, which is driven by the preservation of life.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) that the 2020 survey of BMA members that he referred to showed in fact that the majority of those licensed to practise and closest to terminally ill and dying patients—those in palliative care, geriatric medicine and oncology, and GPs—do not support legalisation. As it stands, the best that can be argued is that the BMA’s position is one of neutrality.

It is worth mentioning, in the context of other countries —for example, Belgium and the Netherlands have been mentioned—that there was in fact no growth in services per 100,000 of population in Holland from 2012 to 2019. That must be a concern for all. It is also important to note the context, and the context must include reference to the fact that Holland has approved plans—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Joanna Cherry. [Interruption.] Sorry, I mean Christine Jardine. My sincere apologies—I will get these glasses fixed. I call Christine Jardine—my apologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will look to the Chair—who says no; I apologise. We will talk about it afterwards.

As has been said any number of times this afternoon, this is about choice. Of course, all of us in this country are so lucky to have this free society we live in. This is about freedom of choice, but it is not about freedom of choice over anything; it is about freedom of choice about the thing we fear most in life: death.

I would say today that I do not actually fear death; I might think differently in a few years’ time—that point in time is getting closer—but I will tell you what I fear, Mr McCabe. I fear a painful death. I absolutely fear a painful death. I may have options. Some of us are lucky enough that we could plan ahead and say, “Well, we’ll make that trip to Zurich”, or we might take the terrible path that the father of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) had to take. People have a choice, of course, to do what they think is right and not to take that option, but instead to take the natural path. However, I think it is wrong to remove from people the choice, a choice that other countries and other places allow and that we can choose to have, as well—the ones who are lucky enough to have that choice.

There is one thing that we have probably not discussed in this debate. It is not just about the fear of dying; it is about the fear of what might happen. There is a quote from Dr Sandy Briden, who died of a form of cancer that is rare in the UK:

“Knowing I had the option of an assisted death when things get too much would allow me to live now, without the constant fear of what might happen at the end. For me, assisted dying isn’t about dying; it’s about living.”

It is about living that last time we have, knowing we have the choice—away from that anxiety, which must be terrible for people nearing these situations—and it is certainly something that I would have wished for my mother when she passed away at the end of 2019. The palliative care was there, but still it was, for all those around her, a traumatic experience.

I do not get the slippery-slope argument. We have seen that in Oregon, which has not changed its law in 25 years, a very low percentage of people—0.7%—take this path of death through assisted dying.

However, I understand that there are really cogent arguments as to why we would not have this law, which is why I support an inquiry. I just do not see what the argument against an inquiry is. We could look at best practice around the world and decide what is best practice for the United Kingdom.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We have got 31 speakers into this debate. We have had to squeeze the Front Benchers a little bit to do that, so if they could confine themselves to nine or 10 minutes, the mover of the motion might just get a last word.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing the debate. Introducing a debate on a matter like this means speaking at a very pressured moment. I thought she spoke with bravery and set the tone for what has been a very moving, powerful debate with high-quality contributions on both sides. It has shown Parliament at its best, as is often the case when we are freed from pre-set whipping, Government positions and so on.

I am grateful to the more than 155,000 people who signed the petition. Obviously, we must not forget the role of our constituents and the public in this matter. This debate is a welcome opportunity for the House to debate, for the first time in this new Session, an issue of such profound sensitivity and importance. We all experience the death of people we care about and, wherever one stands on the underlying issue, we must surely all want dignity and compassion for those in their final phase of life.

Before turning to the Government position and contributions from colleagues, I want to start with a note on the language, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). Some people draw a distinction between assisted dying, which they see as allowing dying people to have a choice over the manner and timing of their imminent death, and assisted suicide, which they see as helping people who are not dying to choose death over life. To be clear, the criminal law currently makes no such distinction; under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, the offence is “encouraging or assisting” suicide, and my use of the term “suicide” reflects that. It does not indicate prejudice either way, and it is not an indication of the Government taking one side over the other.

The Government’s view remains that any relaxation of the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide. To be clear, that does not mean that the Government do not care about the issue at hand—far from it. It means that the ultimate decision on whether to change the law is for Parliament to decide, in the tradition of previous matters of conscience that have come before the House.

While I note the petition’s call for the Government to bring forward legislation to allow assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill and have mental capacity, our neutral stance means that such a change would have to be made via private Members’ legislation. If, at a future date, it became the clearly expressed will of Parliament to amend or change the criminal law so as to enable some form of assisted dying, the Government would of course undertake the role of ensuring that the relevant legislation was delivered as effectively as possible.

Turning to the many contributions made by colleagues today—I apologise if I do not cover all of them—I think it is fair to say that there is a strong consensus on the need to ensure that we have high-quality palliative care. Those on both sides of the debate agree strongly on that. As my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) mentioned, the Government have shown in recent legislation the importance that they attach to the matter.

I can confirm that NHS England is developing an ambitious programme focused on transformational approaches for the next five years. The programme will build on the work of the palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical networks, which sit across the seven regional footprints. The Government recognise that high-quality palliative and end-of-life care should include the opportunity for individuals to discuss their wishes and preferences so that they can be taken fully into account in the provision of their future care—also known as advance care planning.

Of course, resources matter. Many Members made that point, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has NHS management experience. Obviously, the Government strongly agree. We are providing £4.5 billion of new investment to fund expanded community multidisciplinary teams providing rapid, targeted support to those identified as having the greatest risks and needs, including those at the end of their life.

On hospices, my constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) —the former Health Secretary—made a point about the joint funding model. Most hospices are independent charitable organisations, and they receive around £350 million of Government funding annually to provide NHS services. As part of the covid response, which my right hon. Friend of course oversaw, more than £400 million has been made available to hospices since the start of the pandemic to secure additional NHS capacity and enable hospital discharge.

Turning to some of the core issues raised today, a number of colleagues referred to what is happening in other jurisdictions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and others made the point that change is happening in many other jurisdictions and argued that we should be reflecting that. Equally, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) made the point that some evidence from those jurisdictions may be negative. I think she referred to the experience of the medical profession in Canada. Clearly, whatever we do and however we move forward, we should always be cognisant of what is happening in countries and jurisdictions where the law has changed.

Perhaps the key point of principle here, which is where this becomes a matter of conscience, is choice—choice versus the risk, shall we say, of abuse, and the need for safeguards and so on. Many colleagues spoke about choice, including my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said it is about the right to choose “a good death”.

I was particularly moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who said that we should consider the choice not just of the individual but of their family, who, because of fear of the criminal situation, may feel that they cannot discuss the matter. His was one of the most moving speeches I have heard in my time as an MP, and I hope that people on all sides respect the fact that he spoke under great duress, shall we say, but added much to the debate.

Equally, there is a concern that choice is restricted by income, particularly when we are talking about Dignitas. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and others. However, against that—we must remember this—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), whom I support, spoke eloquently about the risk of pressure on those who may feel that they have to take an action that they would not have felt they should take before any change in the law. That is an incredibly important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) made a similar point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who said that it could be argued that that actually restricts choice because of the pressure it implies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke about the proposed change implying death on demand.

On the position of the public, polling does seem to have shifted. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and the hon. Member for Gower both referred to what is happening with the opinion polls. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made the point that a poll is not an argument and we are, after all, a representative democracy. Ultimately, it will be for this House, through a private Member’s Bill or another mechanism, to make the change.

As there are only three minutes left, I will rattle through my remaining points. There was much talk of the slippery slope from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and others. I just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that if a doctor were injecting drugs with the aim of ending life, that would not be assisted suicide or assisted dying; that would be murder under common law. [Interruption.] I am afraid that, because of the time, I will finish with this point.

I think that colleagues on both sides are calling for a national conversation and, if not an inquiry, then certainly an investigation by the Health and Social Care Committee, for example. Obviously, if any of those steps go forward, the Government will do their best to assist, within the constraints of their neutral position, which I take very seriously. The matter was recently debated at length in the House of Lords. It is for hon. and right hon. Members, if they wish, to bring forward private Members’ Bills or debates in the usual way, such as through the Backbench Business Committee.

Wherever we stand, I think we can all say that this has been a very passionate debate that has moved forward the public’s understanding of the key positions on both sides. We should all be proud of the way in which the Petitions Committee has allowed the public to see all the arguments, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I call Tonia Antoniazzi—you must conclude before 7.30 pm or the motion will lapse.

Neighbourhood Policing: West Midlands

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), on leading the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is now the shadow Minister for Immigration—and apparently for debate procurement—on securing the debate.

I hear all the time from constituents who are frustrated about the small number of prosecutions of those who burgle our homes, steal our cars and threaten our loved ones. It is inescapable that falling police numbers are part of the explanation of why that is happening and why people are so frustrated. Even if the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister keep their promise and restore some of their party’s cuts to police funding, we will still end up with 1,000 fewer officers in the west midlands than in 2010, and we will continue to suffer from an unfair formula that drives up our council tax and gives us a smaller share of Government grant than places such as neighbouring Warwickshire, resulting in its ability to increase its police numbers at the very time that ours have been substantially reduced. That is the unfairness.

I am totally behind the call for a fairer formula, properly applied, and better funding for West Midlands police. It is essential if our constituents are to get a better deal. I also wonder whether other areas of reform need consideration. In 2005, my old boss, Charles Clarke, who I am sure you remember, Sir Edward, suggested proposals to increase police numbers and to lower costs by reshaping and reducing the overall number of forces. His ideas, as the Minister may know, were bolstered by a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that argued that the existing structure of the police was not fit for purpose. It recommended creating strategic constabularies of sufficient size to provide effective neighbourhood policing and tackle organised crime.

Those plans were opposed by politicians of all parties, if I remember correctly, and by chief constables and the then Association of Police Authorities. As a result, we still have broadly the same configuration in place almost 17 years later, although now it seems to have been bolstered by police and crime commissioners.

I acknowledge that lots of police and crime commissioners do a good job and make a good impact, although it occurs to me—the Minister will recall a debate in this place a few weeks ago—that they have in their own way led to a further politicisation of the police. They have brought much more politics into the police, which is why we had an argument the other week about the West Midlands police and crime commissioner’s Conservative opponents opposing his police plan which, of course, is a requirement. But the creation of so many commissioners also means that reform, which may mean reducing the number of forces, is much less likely to take place now.

I have concluded that we need two things: top-quality detectives, investigators and specialists to help crack the cyber-crime that destroys businesses and empties bank accounts, to stop people such as modern slavers and to smash criminal gangs. But we also need police to tackle burglary, vehicle theft and antisocial behaviour. If neighbourhood policing is forced to compete with organised crime for resources, I suspect it will always be the poor relation. In the west midlands, we have already lost 50% of neighbourhood officers.

Perhaps now is the time to think again about reform. Why not a two-tier system, with ringfenced resources protecting the numbers policing our streets, gathering local intelligence and keeping the community safe and a separately funded second tier of specialised officers able to wage war on organised crime? That would require revision of the formula and probably a reduction in the overall number of forces, but it could yield the kind of policing that many of our constituents are asking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi]

I would rather not, just now. The facts sadly speak for themselves. We need the right strategy for deploying all the new police officers we recruit, making the right decisions locally, and having the will and competence to deliver on them. The Labour police and crime commissioner has closed dozens of police stations, while spending more than £30 million on refurbishing plush offices at his headquarters in Lloyd House in Birmingham.

[Steve McCabe]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Marco Longhi]

Not just now.

[Steve McCabe]

Does it say in the hon. Gentleman’s speech whether he will give way at any point?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Calm down. The hon. Gentleman does not have to give way if he does not want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi]

Meanwhile, Dudley and Sedgley police stations have closed. Some hope was given to Dudley people when a new police station was promised in Dudley. It was hailed by my predecessor—the noble Lord Austin—as a new multimillion-pound station to replace the one in Brierley Hill. Several years later, we are still waiting for it. In 2019, it was announced that it would open in 2021, yet no detailed plans have been submitted by the police and crime commissioner to the council planning department.

Dudley is a major metropolitan town—I believe it is the largest town in the country that is not a city—and it has been without a central police station since late 2017. We are paying the price for no presence as a result of inaction and incompetence. Perhaps the Minister might inquire of the police and crime commissioner when Dudley people might see shovels in the ground and the promised new station.

I have great respect for a local police inspector in Dudley by the name of Pete Sandhu and his team. They are trying their utmost to make do with offices borrowed from Dudley Council that are, quite frankly, not fit for purpose. Inspector Pete Sandhu, the local police teams and PCSOs in Dudley town, the surrounding villages and those across the west midlands not only deserve but need a station that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, time and again, Labour police and crime commissioners have failed their constituents—including mine.

[Steve McCabe]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. Is it in order—or, indeed, the custom—for the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary to read someone else’s speech during a debate?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reply to that?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

There you are.

[Steve McCabe]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). Can I ask who wrote his speech?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Are we having a little debate now?

Stop and Search: West Midlands

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing today’s debate.

I will start by talking about stop and search as a tool that the police are able to use to tackle crime. Just this week in the Northfield constituency, we have seen our local police force working with the National Crime Agency. They have conducted a successful operation on the Cock Hill estate, taking four criminals and weapons in the form of a gun and knives off the streets. That is an example of how these powers are used every day to bring down crime in this country and to make our streets much safer.

We have also seen the powers being used in areas such as the Three Estates in Kings Norton, in my constituency. This time last year, my inbox was full of messages from people who were worried and concerned about the safety of their children and their families on the streets of Kings Norton. However, in the course of the last year, we have seen crime coming down, thanks to our local police, including the impact team and the neighbourhood team, who have been working together hand in hand to bring down crime, using the powers that they have to make our streets safer.

I want to say thank you to Inspector Michelle Cassidy and Chief Superintendent Steve Graham, who have been an enormous support to our local teams in the area; people such as Councillor Adrian Delaney in Rubery and Rednal who have worked with the police and local communities to bring down crime in Cock Hill and ensure that we make it a safer place; and local residents such as Natalie Chambers on the Three Estates, who helped to organise an online Facebook group, sharing information with different residents, empowering them and organising them in order to ensure that the police have the correct information at the right time, so that they can decide how to execute their powers and how to bring down crime locally.

As many speakers have said so far, stop and search is a vital tool. We have seen nationally how it saves lives. Last year, more than half a million stop and searches were conducted—that equates to 11 in 1,000 people—and 11,000 weapons were taken off the streets of this country. There were 74,000 instances of people being arrested also.

We see locally how this power is being used proportionately and responsibly by our local police in the form of the GOWISELY initiative, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East mentioned. It is these sorts of initiatives that, as local politicians and community groups, we can help to scrutinise through the panels. I am glad that my hon. Friend brought up the panels, because they are certainly going to be picking up some of the issues that she raised. I am going to have a look at my own Birmingham panel and see how I can help and engage with it, to see what we can all do to ensure that the powers are being used wisely. It also means that local community groups feel that they are having input into the process.

I am very glad that the police are being protected in these incidents through police body cameras. I was glad that the Government listened to the calls from the Police Federation to have the images stored on a camera published, so that there are checks and balances. Unfortunately, we did see many incidents in which police were being filmed and the videos were being put online, but the police were not able to publish their own video footage to protect themselves from people making allegations against them in relation to stop and searches and other incidents. I am glad that the Government listened to the Police Federation in that respect and moved forward.

Knife crime is a real concern in Birmingham. It is something that has been around for as long as I can remember. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) knows that I was born and raised in his constituency, and lived there for 30 years. Five people I went to school with—we were in the same year group—are currently inside for murder. All those crimes were committed with a knife. People I went to school with have been slain in Finchley Park over arguments. The hon. Gentleman always gives very impassioned speeches about resources, but these incidents were pre-2010, in the times of plenty, when these sorts of things were never addressed properly. They affected people and children, and included the killing of children in local parks. We need to address these issues, and these powers are at the heart of the efforts to combat them.

It has been said that the police and crime commissioner is fully supportive of the initiative of stop and search. If that is the case, why has he thrown a cloud of doubt over stop and search recently? Why has he thrown this cloud of doubt over the entire process locally? He did not have to do so. He could have carried on with the way it is at the moment without revising his action plan. What has happened is that locally, in the media, it has thrown a cloud of doubt over the process. I can imagine that it really demoralises our local police, who go out day in, day out, and face these challenges. They need political leadership as back-up for what they are doing day in, day out, and it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that they have that political leadership behind them.

Unfortunately, with the current police and crime commissioner, as with the last, we have seen a lack of political leadership. There has always been a void between the decisions that they make and the distancing away from those decisions and trying to blame the Government all the time. There is not a single police station left in my constituency. Decisions are made in Lloyd House in Birmingham, which, coincidentally, had £30 million spent on it to do it up at a time when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said there were cuts. There was £30 million spent on an office in the middle of the city centre. Local police stations were taken away. My entire constituency does not even have a base that the police can call home.

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

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I do not want to score a point, but I have listened to debates, as have lots of us, about police stations. How many police officers and staff does he think are required to resource a basic local police station? Our areas—his and mine—are served at the moment by Bournville police station. If we had another half dozen satellites, how many staff does he think would be required to staff those? How long should they be open and what would that cost?

[Gary Sambrook]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I do not have the figures to hand, but that £30 million would have gone a long way to providing local police stations. Even if it is not an entire police station that is open in the constituency—somewhere on the high street, in the community, in an impact area—that money could have been spent in local communities across the west midlands, particularly in my section of Birmingham, rather than being spent on a city centre office.

I have listened to the impassioned speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington since I was a young man—or boy, even. However impassioned he is, that does not make his point any more right than anybody else’s. He has portrayed doom and gloom since 2010, and there is a reason why people, including me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, rejected his doom and gloom argument. People do not believe the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has deployed over the last 11 years, because there is always a void between the rhetoric and the actual doing. We have had a Labour police and crime commissioner in the west midlands from day one. When the hon. Gentleman goes around knocking on doors, giving TV interviews and blaming the Government all the time, they can see the gap between the rhetoric and the actions locally. That is why they did not believe him during the elections, and that is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East are in this Chamber at the moment.

It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that our police force has the political leadership.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing the debate. It is nice to have a focus on the west midlands. Listening to her, there was very little difference between her positive view of stop and search as a police tool and my own view. To be perfectly honest, there is not that much difference across this Chamber in that respect.

If I have a criticism of Conservative Members, it is that that they suffer a little from selective and collective amnesia. I wonder whether I can tell you a short story, Ms Rees. I have been struck by the account given by some hon. Members—that the police and crime commissioner may be putting at risk the valuable tool of stop and search and may be undermining the confidence of the police. You will remember, Ms Rees, that in April 2014, after record falls in knife crime, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the then Home Secretary, announced her dissatisfaction with stop and search. She demanded a much more complex recording system, with the deliberate aim of reducing the number of stop and searches. The police were instructed that they could use stop and search only when they believed that a crime would take place, rather than when they believed that a crime may take place.

I agree with Members that stop and search is essentially a preventive tool, so it follows that there will be some occasions when it is used and the people stopped will not be found to be in possession of illegal items. However, it also serves as a deterrent. That is especially important if we are talking about youth crime and particular types of street crime. It is worth while as well, and I would defend that.

I remind hon. Members that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said that the power should be used only when the police were absolutely confident that a crime would take place. That had a dramatic effect. There were 600,000 fewer recorded stop-and-search exercises as a direct result of that intervention. It resulted in a spiralling epidemic of knife crime that we are still suffering from today. I say in all seriousness to Conservative Members that if they are worried about the risk of misplaced judgments on stop and search that could lead to a curtailment, they are seven years too late. The former Home Secretary and Prime Minister did that and created damage and a lack of confidence in police forces across the country.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who said that the Opposition are taking up too many scares, that the public do not believe us and that that is the explanation for his and his colleagues’ election results in 2019. If people do not believe what we say about crime, I would like to hear his explanation of the election of the third Labour police and crime commissioner in the west midlands 18 months later. The assumption is that people may have some doubts about what has been said in other areas, but when it comes to police and crime, they do not trust the Tories, but they trust the Labour candidate. Is that not a logical conclusion to draw?

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s selective amnesia. Let us not forget who has been in power for 11 years and takes overall collective responsibility. Let us not forget who scrapped ID cards, abandoned neighbourhood policing, and cut our police force in the West Midlands by over 2,000. Let us not forget that, even if we get the money that has now been promised, we will still be 1,000 officers short of the target. That is the overall reason why we have a crime problem in our communities these days—there simply are not enough police.

The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable claim—I hear it often—about opening more local police stations. I asked him what that would cost and to be fair, he said, “I haven’t a clue”. However, he also said, “Well, it could be paid for with that £30 million.” I want to make two points about that. First, staffing is a recurring cost, so £30 million cannot keep being spent. Once you’ve spent it, you’ve spent it. I did a quick, back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and I assume that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, my neighbouring constituency, if we could open another four satellite stations—eight in all—at a very minimum for safety, we would need about four staff in each. That is another 32 officers, or officers and civilian staff. In addition, of course, there would be the on-costs of rent, heat and lighting.

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that the Minister for Crime and Policing’s predecessor was tackled on the question of the £30 million. He pointed out at the time that it would save money because the police headquarters could retreat into a central body and the police could refurbish some of their equipment, so that they could use high-tech policing, and create an environment where they could do their job more efficiently. I did not say that; it was the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Nick Hurd.

[Gary Sambrook]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of costs for rent etc. Would it not be far more logical to combine some of the services in the community, and team up with the fire brigade, ambulance services and community hubs for the local authority? Maybe, if we were really revolutionary, we could even merge some of the roles of the police and crime commissioner into that of the mayor, which would be much more sensible.

[Steve McCabe]

At a time when we are waiting six to eight hours to get an ambulance for a 90-year-old woman, I am not sure that talking about merging services is the best strategy. I am quite happy to see certain resources shared, but in my view, that does not mean concentrating them all in the hands of a single person. I would point out that the reason we have separate police and crime commissioners is that this Government forced it upon people at a time when they did not want it. They were asked whether it should be put to a public consultation, and they said, “No, we’re having it anyway”. That is why we have police and crime commissioners. It is part of the collective selective amnesia.

I am proud of the three elected Labour police and crime commissioners in the west midlands. The late Bob Jones had a reputation for decency and integrity; David Jamieson worked hard to bring communities together and showed real concern on issues such as knife crime or illegal Traveller settlements; and I hope that Simon Foster is not being attacked because he is making fair funding and equipping the police with the right resources the centrepiece of his first term.

I simply contrast that with the North Yorkshire Tory PCC who had to resign after victim blaming; the Wiltshire PCC candidate who had to resign on the eve of the count for failure to disclose a conviction; and, of course, the Tory incumbent in Cleveland who is a person of interest to the very force he is supposed to be holding to account.

I hope that demonstrates how easy it is to politicise these issues in a cheap and nasty way. It will not help any of us. We should find the common ground that is staring us in the face. We should work together on stop and search. There is an argument for asking how we get to that aspiration of a higher conviction rate. I am actually in favour of that, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East alluded to some of the ways in which we could do that. I would not have too much trouble working with her on that.

However, there must also be a recognition of the resource deficiency in the west midlands. We are not doing our constituents any favours if we decide to play party politics and do not make the effort to work together. I will be dead straight—that goes for us as well. We have to work on behalf of our constituents because they are the people who are losing out at the moment.

Injunction to Protect the M25

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this type of protest has caused significant concern across the country for many people who rely on the roads for their livelihoods and to get around. As I say, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will strengthen police powers to deal with this issue. There is an offence of blocking the highway at the moment, which the police are using to remove those protesters faster and faster. I am very grateful to those forces that have upped their game over the past few days, to the extent that Surrey police arrived within three minutes of the most recent blockage. Unfortunately, however, the penalty that attaches to that offence is quite weak—it is a level 3 fine, which is up to £1,000. The one thing we know about these groups is that they are well-financed, and this penalty is not proving to be enough of a deterrent. We hope that the injunction, the breach of which carries an unlimited fine and possibly up to two years in prison, will give us the deterrent we need while we wait for that legislation to appear.

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

I concur with the view that this behaviour is grossly dangerous and irresponsible, and I hope that these people will come to their senses. I understand the claim is that the purpose is to demonstrate their support for home insulation programmes. May I suggest to the Minister that he considers ensuring that those who are successfully prosecuted receive a sentence whereby they are put to work helping to insulate the homes of those less fortunate than themselves?

[Kit Malthouse]

What a splendid idea, not least as we learnt from the television this morning that one of the leading organisers of this group has yet to insulate his own home, despite urging the rest of us to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are investing significant amounts of money—more than £1 billion this year alone—on encouraging people to take green measures in their own homes, to help us with the fight against climate change. As for putting some of those individuals towards that effort, I am more than happy for them to come to have a look at the insulation in my roof, which could always do with some improvement—I think that is a jolly good idea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point on behalf of his constituents. The Government’s £100 million investment to prevent crime in prison has enabled hundreds of security items to be purchased that will assist his constituents, including 176 search dogs, 300 metal detection archways and wands, mobile phone detection technology and 51 X-ray body scanners. We have also developed clear guidance for prisons on managing trespassers within the open estate, including protocols on reporting evidence to the police and addressing the site-specific security risks. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further if that would be helpful.

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

What steps his Department is taking with the Office of the Chief Coroner to help ensure timely provision of services by that Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I am grateful to the Chief Coroner, his predecessor and his staff for their work in supporting coroners during the covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has had an enormous impact on coroners and their staff; it is therefore to their very great credit that in 2020 the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest remained at 27 weeks, as it was in 2019.

[Steve McCabe [V]]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but my constituents who are served by the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service often express frustration at delays when they are making burial arrangements. It is a particular issue for Muslim and Jewish families, for whom burials should take place as soon as possible after death. What is being done to ensure that coroners’ courts engage with local religious group to address these problems and make sure that religious beliefs are respected and honoured?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, so they will operate independently. However, I can say that the Government have provided over £4 billion to local authorities to ensure that those coroners who are doing this important work have the resources they need. So far as the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service’s timeliness is concerned, the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest in that area was 10 weeks, down from 14 weeks, in 2019. I am pleased to say that that is well below the average in England and Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend can be reassured that the Courts and Tribunals Service is working daily to review its plans. I am sure that he will be glad to note that, in the magistrates courts, we are now exceeding receipts and we expect the position to return to pre-covid levels by about Easter time or the early summer. The position of the Crown court is more challenging, but the funding that we have obtained through the spending review will allow us to start dealing with the backlog. We also constantly review the social distancing measures. The current assumptions are that social distancing will apply until the end of June. If there is any progress on that front, clearly we will recalibrate, which will give us even more capacity.

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

The chief constable of West Midlands police, MPs, local councillors and others have all expressed concern about the large number of people being released from jails all around the country to unsuitable exempt accommodation in Birmingham. How can that possibly help with rehabilitation and getting these people back on the straight and narrow?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that, throughout this pandemic, the Ministry of Justice has funded accommodation support for people who otherwise would be released into rough sleeping and homelessness. Indeed, we are working on plans as result of the spending review to scale up and improve approved premises and the other type of accommodation that can house in an appropriate way people who are released from custody. I shall furnish the House with an update as soon as it is received, but he can be assured that we are working on this issue because we recognise the scale of the problem.

Sentencing White Paper

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend and I toiled in the vineyard with regard to criminal sentencing procedure. He did not quite write the book, but he certainly read it. I am grateful to him for his warm support and for the excellent work of the Law Commission now being enshrined in law by this Government. That is the bedrock of what we are doing, and we are going to build on it in an intelligent way. He is absolutely right to talk about the role of the Parole Board. I have taken a particular interest in making sure that sensitive intelligence material is indeed released to it in the most proper way. I pay tribute to the former vice-chairman of the Parole Board, Sir John Saunders, who my right hon. and learned Friend will know from his days as a Birmingham practitioner, and who made those points very cogently. We have acted on them, but we are going to go further with a root-and-branch review of the Parole Board to make sure that it and other mechanisms are truly working in such a way that it makes fully informed risk assessment decisions.

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

There is much to commend in this announcement. Earlier the Lord Chancellor referred to the unduly lenient sentences scheme. How many criminals have had their sentences increased since he announced the expansion of that scheme last year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. This relates to a case that enlisted an appropriately high degree of public interest and concern. She will be glad to know that I will be seeing the president tomorrow and that we will discuss this issue. I do share his confidence; he is an extremely experienced family practitioner and judge whose judgment I respect, and I will be talking about that issue, among many others, with him tomorrow morning.

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

20. My constituent has been a victim of domestic abuse, harassment and assault. The offender got a community rehabilitation order but Staffordshire and West Midlands failed to enforce it, so he has walked scot-free and she is still being harassed. Where is the justice for her?

[Robert Buckland]

It would be wrong of me to comment on an individual case, but there is a general principle about the enforcement of court orders and something has clearly gone seriously wrong here. That is why, as Minister of State and now as Lord Chancellor, I am driving forward, together with my colleague the Minister of State, thoroughgoing reform of the process so that we can ensure that when community orders are made they are properly enforced. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about that particular case, I would be happy to hear his representations.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on his thoughtful and beautiful speech. To give his maiden speech in that spirit shows the way in which he will work hard for his constituents to tell the stories not just of the two towns he represents but of the people within the towns, and also of the search for meaning and the search for purpose in politics. I really must congratulate him on making such a poignant and powerful maiden speech.

I rise to support this legislation. The purpose behind the Bill is the right one. It is to ensure that those convicted of terrorist offences are not released early without a Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a danger to the public. In the past few months, we have seen two awful terror attacks—one on London Bridge and one in Streatham—and our hearts go out to those who were killed or hurt, and also to their families and to those who were there and witnessed the awful events. We owe our thanks and tributes to brave members of the public as well as to the police, the security services and the emergency services, and to those such as Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who worked so hard on the rehabilitation of offenders in the community, and who worked every day to help keep others safe. They tragically lost their lives in the London Bridge attack.

I agree with the Lord Chancellor and with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that we should come together on this, because terrorists seek to undermine our way of life and to divide us, and we cannot let them so do. We have faced terrorist and extremist attacks for many years in this country. We have seen an increase in Islamist extremism and, more recently, an increase in far right extremism. The changing patterns of those threats include an increase in lone attacks by those who have been radicalised, either online or in prison. In those attacks, by extremists on all sides in pursuit of poisonous ideologies, people are hoping not just to hurt and harm us but to provoke fear and reactions that they can further feed upon. So it is a sign of our strength and resilience as a country that most people have always been determined to come together in the face of such extremism and attacks and not to let them divide us.

The Streatham attack highlights a problem. The police, the courts, the security services, the prisons, the rehabilitation and prevention services and the affected communities all need our support and also Government support to keep communities safe. That is why this Bill is justified and needed. When someone has been convicted of terrorism and they are still dangerous to the public, they should not be released early from prison. That means that, before they are released, they must be subjected to a proper Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a threat. The seriousness of terror events and the dangers of radicalisation mean that the police often rightly intervene before an appalling attack takes place and charge people with preparatory offences, but in some of those cases the police, the security services, the courts, and the prison and probation service are all aware that they are dealing with people who are capable of something even more serious.

People have raised concerns about applying these new rules to those currently serving their sentences, and I accept the Government’s legal advice on the fact that the proposal does not change the length of sentences. We have always had administrative rules about the way in which sentences are served. For example, people are out on licence for the bit of the sentence that is served in the community. However, if licence terms are breached, people can be returned to prison to continue their sentence in custody, so that concept of risk is built into the criminal justice system, the system of custody and the system of sentencing. That is why it is right that the Parole Board should be able to assess the risk in such cases, just as they do in many other cases. It is sensible and proportionate.

I have already said to Ministers that it is important that this legislation is drawn up in a way that is robust against legal challenge, particularly to ensure that Parole Board assessments can take place. I agree with both the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that we must ensure that we keep our communities safe and do what is right while defending the British values of the rule of law and supporting the European convention on human rights—all the very things that terrorists try to undermine and threaten.

I also accept the need for emergency legislation and accept the Government’s warnings that they, the police and security services are concerned about other individuals who might otherwise be released without parole assessment and who they believe are a danger to the public and should not be released early without any kind of assessment. However, it is right to raise a concern that it is not ideal to be making this kind of legislation in a day. It is right that we do so in these circumstances, but the Government must recognise that it is not ideal to rush through legislation breathlessly.

To be honest, there have been many warnings that such an issue was coming down the track, because the Government have known about the problem for some time. The Home Affairs Committee took evidence from Neil Basu in October 2018 during the course of its consideration of what became the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, and he told us:

“The point that some of our radicalisers are getting short sentences, coming out early, and being able to continue is a problem, as is not having sufficient resources in place to use desistence or disengagement programmes.”

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

I support the legislation, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it feels a bit like a sticking plaster. The unanswered questions are the danger here. What happens to the people who we keep in prison longer unless there is effective intervention? What confidence can we have that MAPPA levels 2 and 3 are stringently managed and enforced? That is always the issue that must be addressed when such people come out of prison.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a danger that we are simply reacting to this situation in a hand-to-mouth way, rather than in a more strategic way that recognises some of the underlying issues that need to be dealt with over a long time. We may need further legislation, but that should be done in a thoughtful way, with proper scrutiny, not left until the last minute and, as a result, done in a breathless rush.

Streatham Incident

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I have not seen that report. It is a matter for those responsible for the assessment of risk within the custodial estate to look at the evidence, to professionally assess it and to understand the particularly unique risks posed by the terrorist cohort. I think the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s question was precisely on that point, and it is well understood.

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

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s plans for temporary emergency legislation, but surely he was aware of this problem as early as last October. Why did he not incorporate measures in the draft Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which we debated only six days ago?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman would obviously advocate a counsel of perfection. I am dealing with serious violent and sexual offenders—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry but I will not accept that; a lot of the offenders who commit terrorist-related offences are covered by the statutory instrument that was passed last week. We are now dealing with all terrorists and terrorist-related offenders. After every serious incident, it is our duty to assess the level of risk and to look at the situation before us.

[Steve McCabe]

indicated dissent.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but I am totally clear that we need to act quickly. That is why we are going to introduce emergency legislation, and I am sure he will support us in the Lobby.