Policing

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that people should vote Labour on 15 November, and I shall establish why they should do so in due course.

These elections matter. The PCCs have big roles to play in setting budgets, in setting priorities and in engaging the public.

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

In fairness to Lord Blair, it should be said that he has in effect been the victim of a Tory police and crime commissioner and was sacked for political reasons. Is it not therefore understandable that he is a bit sceptical about this Tory policy?

[Mr Hanson]

Lord Blair certainly knows about the role of PCCs, but I think people should vote in this election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I would guess from all I know of the hon. Lady that she opposes any use of the private sector in back-office functions, but that is the way to release warranted police officers, who are trained to be on the streets. Her party goes back and forth; in government it was in favour of the use of the private sector, but in opposition it has retreated to its comfort zone and opposed it. Under both the previous Government and the current one, many police forces have shown—

[Steve McCabe]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

May I finish answering the previous intervention before I come to the hon. Gentleman?

Many police forces have shown that one way to get more officers on to the front line is through more flexible and better use of back-office and middle-office staff. Now I have pleasure in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Steve McCabe]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting.

Given the importance that the Minister attaches to the democratisation that comes with commissioners, does he accept that where commissioners have a mandate from the public to oppose certain types of privatisation, whether in the back office or the front office, the Government should respect that?

[Damian Green]

Yes, I do. We are in favour of democracy, and I accept that it is possible that police and crime commissioners will be elected who will do things with which I disagree. They will be democratically elected and have the mandate to do what they do, and if they get it wrong they will answer to their electorate in four years’ time. That is the point of democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me begin by congratulating the men and women of West Midlands police on the great achievements that they have made despite very tough economic circumstances.

I think that the problem with the cuts argument is that neither the public nor the police believe the Government on the issue. The constant denial about numbers in the face of people’s own evidence means that the Government cannot be believed. Earlier today, we saw the Minister dance on the head of a pin when discussing the percentage scale of the cuts. People know fine well that he is wriggling.

I believe that, in fact, the public are with us on the issue. They think that the Government are going too far and too fast. They are going too far in opting for 20% cuts when the safe level, which we would have supported, was 12%, and they are going too fast in front-loading the cuts, which means that the potential for efficiency gains over a number of years has been wiped out. That has been compounded by the application of the formula under which Surrey, which has the lowest crime levels in the country, suffers a third of the cuts that we suffer in the west midlands. The position is made even worse by a funding approach which means that the funds for the West Midlands force are capped at £25 million a year below the amount provided for by the Government’s own formula, while Surrey receives £6 million a year more than the formula suggests that it needs. The previous police Minister promised to review that, with the hope of actually bringing about some change. I hope that the current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will take on that challenge and try to bring a bit of fairness into the application of the formula.

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will respect democratically elected police and crime commissioners, because in the west midlands not a single candidate who responded to the Police Federation questionnaire—in fairness, the ones who responded are the ones most likely to win—said that they would support the Government’s present privatisation agenda. Bob Jones, the Labour candidate, has made it absolutely clear that he will not support the present business partnering arrangements that West Midlands police have been looking at and that he will not give any juicy contracts to G4S.

What has gone wrong is that the Government have failed to recognise things on two fronts. First, they are sapping the morale of ordinary police officers. Let us forget about what the Police Federation is saying: ordinary rank-and-file officers are stopping me in the supermarket and at meetings—indeed, anywhere in the constituency—to tell me how fed up they are and how much they think the Government are against them. The Government are sapping morale with a constant-change agenda that looks as if they are against the police. Simultaneously, the Government are talking up the rights of what are rapidly becoming private monopolies. Companies such as G4S, Capita and Cerco are running around gobbling up public sector contracts and smaller businesses. Those companies are becoming too big. They are unregulated private monopolies. The combination of that and the constant attacks on the police is sapping police morale. I say this to the Minister: the figures might look good now, but we cannot go on like this.

I was also a bit surprised to hear the Minister trumpeting the demise of antisocial behaviour orders. He has been successful—in the west midlands there has been a 90% reduction in the first six months of this year, compared with 2010—but there is nothing being put in their place. Things are getting worse. Let us look at what the public are saying. Thousands of people responded to my survey in Selly Oak. Antisocial behaviour is their concern. They want the police and the courts to have the powers to tackle it. What the Minister has succeeded in doing is creating a vacuum.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am enjoying his speech immensely. Yesterday Birmingham announced that it is looking at a huge number of cuts, in many ways mimicking Stoke-on-Trent and the huge cuts to our local authority. Does he agree that as local authorities lose their resources, there is a knock-on effect on the work that the police are able to do in tackling antisocial behaviour and other issues?

[Steve McCabe]

That is absolutely true. The danger is that partnerships are being weakened rather than strengthened.

I would like to finish on a slightly more generous note to the Minister. I am pleased to see that the Government have moved somewhat on the question of police and crime commissioners. It is right to broaden the brief so that we think more about victims and the delivery of justice, rather than the narrow management and control of the police, which was more prevalent during the passage of the legislation. As police and crime commissioners develop that work, I hope that they will not be constrained by unnecessary direction from the centre or the imposition of financial controls that make it impossible to do the work, because in that respect the Minister is on to something that the public probably support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady has listed almost all the measures to which we are giving the highest priority in trying to make prisons reforming institutions. We have addressed work and drugs. Alcohol has not yet arisen, but mental illness is also a very serious issue. We are well advanced, in co-operation with the Department of Health, in making plans for diversion services for those who ought to be diverted out of the criminal justice system and given secure treatment for mental illness elsewhere. Through the Department of Health, we are also greatly improving the treatment facilities for those who have to stay in prison. Mental health must be tackled, especially if it is the real root of the criminality of someone in prison—and, indeed, some such prisoners should not be in prison at all.

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

Does the Secretary of State have any plans to adopt the Policy Exchange report recommendation that prisoners should be paid, but in turn should use their wages to pay for perks such as televisions, Freeview boxes and gym equipment, just as the rest of us in the outside world have to do?

[Mr Clarke]

Prisoners pay for some of those things already, although the innovation we are putting in place is to make provision from the earnings of prisoners for payment to victim services and to dependants outside. I agree that we are not just giving prisoners pocket money. We are giving them money from which they should, perfectly properly, make payment for those things for which they ought to be paying, including some reparation to their victims.

Police

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by apologising, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the whole debate, as I have had duties elsewhere in the House today.

The problem with the police settlement is that it repeats a pattern that is becoming familiar: there is a sense that a streak of unfairness runs through whatever the Government turn their hand to, and that far from us all being in it together, there are very clear sets of arrangements that favour some at the expense of others. Let me take the example of the Met, which we all accept faces enormous pressures. It is about to be given £90 million of additional funding, which is enough to recruit about 1,000 additional officers, to help with its extra responsibilities next year. I do not deny that the Met will have extra responsibilities, but neither has it escaped my attention, or the attention of a number of my constituents, that the Conservative party and Boris Johnson have an election battle to face this year. That might well be influencing some of these decisions.

I would like the Minister to tell me why we in the west midlands do not need extra money next year. We have a visit from the Queen as part of the diamond jubilee, which will require additional policing, and we have Jamaican independence day. There is a significant Jamaican population across the west midlands and many events are planned that will require policing. In Birmingham there will be an all-day market in the city centre, which will require additional policing. Birmingham is to host the Jamaican and United States Olympic athletics teams, and that will require additional security and policing. West Midlands police are engaged in the advance policing for Euro 2012, and the further England progresses in the tournament, the greater will be their commitment.

Why are we in the west midlands not entitled to some additional funding for those commitments when the Met’s position has been recognised and provided for? Why should I be told that I am wrong to draw a comparison with what is happening in the context of the London mayoral election? I ask those questions because they are the questions that my constituents are asking me. They tell me that it is not fair. They do not think that we are all in it together; they think that they have been singled out for worse treatment than the Government are prepared to give the Met. The Minister knows perfectly well—because a delegation of west midlands Members of Parliament went to see him last year—that the West Midlands force is underfunded, and that if the police formula were applied fairly, we would receive a substantially larger grant than we are receiving now.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) pointed out earlier, there is a recruitment freeze in the west midlands. According to the latest estimate, by 2015 we shall have lost about 2,764 jobs, which is 450 more than the Minister would have been aware of at the time of the original projections. That means the loss of about 1,165 officers, 122 police community support officers and 1,477 ancillary staff. By March 2012, there will have been 88 compulsory redundancies. It is simply not true that that is not a problem, or that the situation can be easily managed. It is certainly not true that the West Midlands police authority and the chief constable have not been trying to deal with the problem. They have cut £40 million from their budget, they will cut a further £38 million from it next year, and they will cut £126 million over the four-year period.

I do not know how many major organisations policing an area of the size that the West Midlands authority is required to police could easily cut £126 million from their budgets over a four-year period without making any impact on the service that they provide, but I should be interested to hear from any such organisation. What I do know is that 80% of the police budget is made up of pay, and that if cuts on this scale must be made, jobs will inevitably be cut. That is obvious to most people. The fact that a Prime Minister can stand here and pretend that there is an increase in policing on our streets when everyone’s experience is to the contrary beggars belief.

Moreover—we have put this to the Minister repeatedly—because the cuts are front-loaded, they will limit the capacity for efficiency gains and business transformation. Those things could be achieved, and, indeed, West Midlands police are working towards achieving them. As far as I am aware, there is no sense that people in the west midlands do not want change, but some change takes time, especially if it is intended to deliver efficiency gains, and this change cannot be achieved within the time scale that the Minister is forcing on those people.

It is also not true that people in the west midlands do not accept that there is an argument for cuts. Even the chairman of the West Midlands Police Federation has stated clearly that, while recognising that 12% cuts will pose a challenge, he does not believe that they will have an immediate impact on front-line policing. However, he knows from experience and from his contact with his members—real police officers on the ground—that 20% cuts will pose an enormous challenge, and that it will not be possible to make them without cutting front-line services.

We need a bit more fairness in the way the money is shared around. If there are going to be cuts, then we should all be in this together, and the people of the west midlands have as much entitlement to policing and recognition of the policing challenges facing them as do the people living in the Met area. The Minister must look again at the impact on the front line in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. The transformations that he says he wants could be effected if he were to permit more time and space for the job to be done properly.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into the private investigator business. It is unregulated, and it is clear that as the police are forced to withdraw from certain areas of life, the private sector will move in. That could make the situation worse, not better.

Has the Minister had a chance to look at the allegations coming out of Birmingham that the private sector has withdrawn from running Birmingham prison and has handed it over to two major gangs who have transferred their business from the streets of Birmingham to the prison’s cell blocks and landings? The people of the west midlands are certainly not asking for that kind of unregulated private sector. They are not against change, but they want change that is managed, fair and reasonable, and that will deliver security and safety. We will not get it at this pace and with this level of cuts, and with unfair advantages being given to the Met because other people have other issues on their minds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, but the payment-by-results scheme is not limited to private sector prisons. We are piloting it in two public sector prisons as well. The National Offender Management Service is to contribute £1.4 million to eight voluntary sector organisations to help with mentoring, and is also involved in a Europe-funded project that is assessing the relative benefits of mentoring by peers and non-peers.

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

Will the Minister consider the effectiveness of training when it comes to security issues? Will he look into how on earth Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, who is serving 12 years in prison and was described as

“a viper in our midst”

by the judge who jailed him under the Terrorism Act 2000, managed to send a six-page letter from his Belmarsh cell that advised potential terrorists on the best way to outwit our police and security services? Will this latest lapse be investigated by the Justice Secretary?

[Mr Blunt]

Of course that will be investigated, as, indeed, is every security breach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

If the newspaper report is accurate, then whoever carried out that crime committed quite a number of criminal offences, most of which carry very serious penalties, so I hope that the local courts deal with it with appropriate seriousness, having obviously considered all the circumstances. We are sending out, we hope, a strong message that we will not tolerate the use of knives. Threatening with a knife and putting someone in fear of injury is a very serious matter. I wish my hon. Friend every success in working with his constituents to try to reduce the scourge of knife crime in Burton.

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

12. What steps his Department is taking in respect of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences who have completed their minimum tariff.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Tariff-expired indeterminate sentence prisoners will be released from custody only if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that they may be safely managed in the community. We are seeking to identify further improvements to the progression of those prisoners through effective sentence planning, which will require the engagement of the offenders themselves.

[Steve McCabe]

As I understand it, under the Lord Chancellor’s proposals a judge will be required to hand down a mandatory life sentence the second time someone is convicted of using a nuclear weapon. Allowing for all the Lord Chancellor’s wisdom and guile, would it not be an awful lot smarter to hold someone indefinitely the first time they committed that offence?

[Mr Clarke]

Certainly, the Government take a serious view of the use of a nuclear weapon; I hope that not too much of that breaks out in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We discussed these proposals in the House only last week, and we achieved the House’s approval for them. There is an indeterminate sentence called a life sentence, which is the best and most established form of indeterminate sentence. Having got rid of the failed indeterminate sentences for public protection, we expect that quite a lot of people will get life sentences who hitherto would have been given the rather unsatisfactory IPPs.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

There are a number of possible examples. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one of them. If an election is approaching and a chief constable is refusing to follow the priorities on which someone intends to stand, what would prevent that person from saying to the chief constable, “Unless you announce that you will introduce neighbourhood policing, put bobbies on the beat and keep this police station open, all of which I will include in my manifesto, I will sack you”? There is no power for anyone to stop a police and crime commissioner from doing that to a chief constable.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter, and I know that he would be as anxious about such circumstances as I would be. He may think that they will never arise, but he and I both know that many situations arise that were not predicted. I should have thought that any Government would want at least to include a provision ensuring that police and crime commissioners did not have an unfettered power, but as the Bill stands it is completely unfettered.

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

Does my hon. Friend think that the Mayor of London has already demonstrated such circumstances in managing to get rid of two commissioners of the Metropolitan police?

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It illustrates some of the problems that can arise in connection with police and crime commissioners.

I will not rehearse all of what has been said before, but the Minister has asked us to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, and to reinsert the original proposals on police and crime commissioners in the Bill. The “one person” argument, the “operational independence” argument and the politicisation argument are all still there, as is the lack of power for the police and crime panel—the fact that it is a toothless watchdog—yet the Minister is telling us that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong. In their amendment 6 on the police commission model, the Lords attempt to overcome some of the existing problems—such as having one omnipotent person, as the Government would like—by ensuring that the police and crime panel is established as set out in the Bill and that the police and crime commissioner is appointed from among that group of people.

This group of amendments also addresses the delayed election issue. I know some of my hon. Friends want to say a little more about the Welsh aspect of that, and I fully understand and support their argument.

We oppose in principle both the elections and police and crime commissioners. We also believe that if the Government are going to press ahead, May 2012 is a ridiculous date given issues such as the speed with which things would be required to be put in place and the Olympics. The Government apparently now agree with that, but have come up with the equally stupid idea of holding the elections in November. That would be costly, and there would also be further problems that have been pointed out not by the Opposition—my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has not pointed this out—but by the Electoral Commission, including the problems of daylight hours and of the electoral canvass going on at the same time. The Electoral Commission is a body that is independent of this House, and it has pointed out to the Minister that it is silly to delay things until November. Moreover, members of that commission have said that the cost of such a delay would be significant.

I therefore ask the Minister to tell us how on earth the Government have arrived at that date. Why are they delaying the elections? Is there any truth in the newspaper reports that it was in order to ensure that the Liberals voted for the Bill in totality? Is this another example of the tail wagging the dog?

[Steve McCabe]

If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that the delay is to allow more time for candidates to campaign and make themselves known to the public and for the untried and untested arrangements to be developed to the point where they might actually be implemented, would it not make sense to delay the elections until at least May 2013? That would enable the Government to increase the turnout and save on cost, whereas what they are doing is reducing the chances of a high turnout and increasing the cost, which seems completely nonsensical?

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the logic of the Government arriving at the date of 15 November. In speaking to the amendment in question, the Minister in effect just said, “We’re changing the date,” in what amounted to not much more than a shrug-of-the-shoulders argument. The House deserved more than that, because many people say that if we are going to delay this, it is much more sensible to delay until May 2013. Why has this date been chosen? Why is it so special? What discussions have taken place with the Liberals?

There has been much debate about the cost of the elections. How has the figure of £25 million been arrived at? The Government have accepted the sum of £50 million, and £25 million is now to be added to that. As shown by Channel 4’s “FactCheck”, there is now a debate. We have also seen that a referendum that was held on the same day as other elections cost £89 million. Admittedly, that did not include Scotland, and this arrangement is just for England and Wales.

Again, there is no proper explanation, and that fault runs all the way through the Bill. Most of the time the Minister relies on assertion and saying, “This is the right thing to do,” or, “I don’t agree with what other people say.” Very little evidence is given, and there is seldom any resort to any studies that might have been done. Instead, there is just an assertion of what the Minister thinks is the right thing to do.

I shall conclude, as I know that many Members wish to speak—and I see that you are getting a bit restless as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have offered no real argument as to why these measures should be put back into the Bill, and they have no real answers to the questions that were raised throughout the Committee’s proceedings. They have offered no real argument as to why they think this delay is right, nor have they made any real assessment of the costs involved. They have offered no real argument as to why everyone else is wrong and they are right.

Even at this late stage, the Minister pretends to us that another little tidying-up exercise is needed. The change in respect of the financial code of practice is presented as merely a technical amendment, yet one of the key demands made in the Lords was that a code of practice was necessary in respect of the police and crime commissioners. However, apart from a few sentences of assertion from the Minister, we have no real idea even at this late stage about this financial code of practice, which will govern the way the police and crime commissioners operate. The Government have therefore not just produced another tweaking amendment, but have had to bring forward a major change. That is why we tabled our amendment about the importance of this change to chief constables. The Minister again just dismissed this, but perhaps he would agree with those who say, “Why shouldn’t the chief constable have some real say about what should be included in that financial code of practice and about the impact of police grant cuts on officer numbers?”

This is the wrong reform at the wrong time. If we were to ask people whether they would set as a higher priority this Government spending more than £100 million on the ideological experiment of police and crime commissioners or instead spending that money on police officers on the street, I think almost everyone in the country would say, “Let’s have police officers on the street and not spend £100 million on elections that nobody wants.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

I will not take issue with the skewed nature of the wording—“politician” is often a dirty word. I have no knowledge of the survey, but what many of the respondents would probably not understand is that the majority of those serving on a 17-person police authority are politicians—nine of them will be indirectly elected council members. So a clear political element is already involved, which brings me on to my next point.

[Steve McCabe]

It is true that the members of police authorities are indirectly elected and are party people. However, is not the difference that most of the commissioners will owe their allegiance directly to the political party that maintains the machine that gets them into power? They will have two obligations—not only to the electorate, but to the political machine—and so they will be party political commissioners.

[Mr Ruffley]

The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that these people will fly under party colours. However, when getting elected as Members of Parliament for our constituencies we all fly under a party label and rely on a smooth-running local party machine—that is what we hope it is—to get us elected, and yet once elected our duty is to serve all our constituents without fear or favour. I know that he is a diligent constituency man, as I hope I am. I take up the issues and concerns raised by each individual who comes to see me in my advice centre, regardless of race, creed, colour, faith, party political persuasion and even whether they are nice to me or rude to me. All of us take that view, because it is in the nature of the office we hold. I would be very disappointed if a police commissioner, elected at the ballot box, as we hope will be the case a year this coming November, did not take that same view.

[Steve McCabe]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is an extremely diligent MP who does not judge the people who come to his advice centre. The difference is that when a member of the public approaches him they know perfectly well that he is a Tory MP—I do not say that in any disparaging sense, because they would identify me as a Labour MP—but when they approach a member of the police they expect that person to be a politically neutral member of the police. People would not expect such a person to be the Tory or Labour police commissioner, and that is surely the distinction here.

[Mr Ruffley]

There is a difference here, because we are not talking about having police officers—actual law enforcement officers—being party political, and neither is the hon. Gentleman. The commissioner will represent a mode of accountability—on behalf of the public, who will have voted for him or her, and will be able to hold the chief constable to account in a more focused and single-minded way. They will do the job that the police authority attempts to do at the moment. We believe that it can be done better by one individual.

I wish to deal with the issue of politicisation and the democratic mandate. In the last Parliament, the Labour party and my party came to pretty similar conclusions about the accountability arrangements—the answerability arrangements—that currently pertain, as did our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches; we came to the conclusion that those arrangements were not adequate and that there was a democratic deficit. We know that because of what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling, and although that has already been cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), I wish to reinforce the point. In 2008, the then Labour Government’s draft legislative programme announced that there would be a Bill including proposals to provide

“a clear and powerful public voice in decision making through directly elected representatives”.

I understand that in the Committee stages of this Bill there were mild flirtations by Labour Members with various forms of direct election, and I think it is entirely proper for the Labour party to change its mind. I understand that the shadow Home Secretary now wants to ditch the whole idea of elections. However, let us just be non-partisan for a moment and accept that in the previous Parliament all three major political parties concluded that there was an argument for having a sharper, keener focus of responsibility. That involves letting the people or person holding the chief constable to account have a mandate from the public, arising from a direct election, on the basis of one person, one vote, in the police authority area over which a police and crime commissioner would preside. There is something incredibly important about a mandate being secured in that way, as both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were conceding in their policy pronouncements as recently as the end of the previous Parliament. So let us not kid ourselves that the end of the world is nigh as a result of this proposal for police and crime commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Indeed. I thank the Minister for reminding me. I know that he has mentioned it to me before. He is right. It is important that those two individuals are consulted, but neither of them is going to be a police and crime commissioner. Kit Malthouse is very experienced, but he is already there. A bit of wiggle room may be needed when we get to the end of the process. Let us wait and see. However, the Minister has made excellent progress.

I am concerned about the timing of the election. When Ministers appeared before the Select Committee they were emphatic. We asked them to delay the election until May 2013, after the Olympics, but they emphatically replied that they thought everyone would be able to cope and the election should be held in May 2012. Delaying it until November at an additional cost of £25 million, over and above the cost of police and crime commissioners, is in my view an example of the fact that money can be found when there is a political will to find it.

When negotiations have to be conducted with the Treasury, Ministers are very willing to enter into such negotiations, but I understand from the Home Secretary that the matter has not yet been signed off by the Treasury. When she appeared before the Select Committee on Thursday, she said that she was in negotiations with the Treasury. I should have thought that if the Prime Minister says, “Find the money,” and the Home Secretary says, “Find the money,” even the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to accept that. I am not sure what the negotiations are about, but I assume the Minister will get his £25 million.

[Steve McCabe]

There is an issue about money, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in the past the Government have resisted setting a threshold for the elections? Holding them in November is, as we heard, likely to depress the turnout. What level of turnout would give a new commissioner legitimacy—for example, in the west midlands, with a population of 5 million?

[Keith Vaz]

I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to decide what level of turnout is acceptable for the west midlands, with its population of 5 million. My concern is the electoral register. At that time, electoral registration officers will be involved in their annual canvass. Nobody likes to campaign in November. I cannot remember the last time we had elections in November, although the Minister will no doubt tell us when he winds up. It has certainly not happened in my time in the House, and I have been here for more than 24 years.

November is, of course, not the best weather to campaign, and I am not sure that everyone will open the door to Members of Parliament, even Members as charming as the Minister and the shadow Minister. The register will be in the process of being compiled, it will not be complete, and the basis of the register will be May 2013. The Minister needs to reassure us on this point, but I hope very much that we will take into consideration some of the comments that have been made. I look forward to hearing replies to some of them in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Perhaps I should explain to Members who were wondering why I was not standing up to speak that I was trying to give others a chance to make a contribution. Some of what I say may appear to repeat aspects of the debate we have already had, and although I do not mind being subjected to barracking, I hope I will not be subjected to barracking over and above what one might normally expect.

As we have now moved into Committee, let me go into a little more detail. To be fair to the Minister, a few moments ago he could have done with a little more time to address some of the measures he is trying to rush through. Clause 1 is essentially the Bill, so it is almost as if we are repeating Second Reading, but let me say again from the outset that we support the provisions in clause 1. We absolutely agree that we need to fast-track the Bill, and the reasons for that are well set out in the explanatory memorandum.

Earlier, the shadow Home Secretary was trying to elicit from the Government answers to two key questions on fast-tracking and the legal advice and preparation—or lack of it—that the Home Office made in introducing the Bill. First, our understanding is that the Attorney-General was asked by the Supreme Court to intervene in the public interest in the application for a stay of judgment. Did the Attorney-General intervene and support the Government? Was he involved in seeking that stay of judgment in the Supreme Court? As I say, we support the fast-tracking of the Bill, but secondly, will the Minister tell us when the Home Office commissioned officials to draw up draft legislation? It would be of interest to us all to know when that advice was commissioned, so that we could have greater clarity about the Bill and the speed with which the Home Office acted. Our view is that it did not act as quickly as it might or should have done.

We do not, in any way, underestimate the importance of and need for speed in this matter, as 80,000 individuals are currently on police bail. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to look at the submission from The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff—NAPO—I urge them to examine it. That body has put together some case studies that illustrate some of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the judgments. I shall just discuss one of its examples, which relates to a 24-year-old man arrested on suspicion of an alcohol-fuelled assault and affray. He was held in cells overnight to sober up, and it is believed that that counts towards the 96 hours. His interview was then delayed for a further two hours to wait for the duty solicitor. He was then bailed on condition that he avoided the victim and the pub, and the police are now collecting witness statements and forensic analysis from the site. Five days have already passed since the incident, and so the bail conditions will fall. NAPO’s submission contains other examples, which are set out for the Committee. Those case studies are extremely important and they show why the Government have introduced this fast-track Bill.

In the previous debate the Minister started to respond to some of the questions posed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. If we examine what Liberty, Justice and many hon. Members have said about the Bill, we find that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked. However, we need to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was saying, as it goes to the heart of the matter. As he set out, the Bill contains no sunset clause and, irrespective of whether or not that is the right way to proceed, that does not mean that the Government should not consider some of the issues that people have raised. The fact that everyone accepts the need for it to be fast-tracked does not mean that we should not address the issues relating to time limits for how long somebody can and should be able to remain on police bail, and those concerning some of the conditions that are attached to bail.

I believe that the Minister said earlier that the system had been operating for 25 years without anybody raising such issues and so there was not previously a problem. I do not mean to misquote him, and apologise if I am doing so, but the fact—or not—that these issues have not been raised before does not mean that the Government should not consider examining those that have arisen as a consequence of the judgment. There needs to be a debate. Given that the Bill contains no sunset clause, will the Minister say whether he feels that there is a need for a debate about time limits and the application of conditions in police bail, just to see whether any change to the guidance should be made? There may well be no need as a result of that debate to make such a change, but all this throws up an opportunity for us to discuss with the police and others whether any change is needed.

[Steve McCabe]

I do not think that I have heard either on Second Reading or during this debate whether someone who decides to leave this country, which at the moment they are perfectly entitled to do, will be subject as of 12 July to the retrospective conditions. Presumably it would cost quite a lot of money and time to try to bring that person back. Is that the kind of problem about which my hon. Friend is concerned? There is a category of people who would be perfectly at liberty to leave the country now because no controls apply to them, but whom we would want to contact and bring back because they are engaged in potentially quite serious offences.

[Vernon Coaker]

That might well be one example of concern to us all. Whether we use that example or others—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) cited examples of police bail having gone on and on—we need to consider any constraints or restraints or whether the system works so well that we do not need to worry about it. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that it is time to discuss that and to see what the evidence tells us, or that we should just carry on.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—it might have been the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—mentioned the use of police bail. Do we need to consider that? Is it totally appropriate? Are we sure that it works in the way that we would want in all circumstances?

One of the things about a fast-tracked Bill is that the information that comes to us is fast-tracked, too. Some Members were sent just this morning, when it was published, the report on police detention and bail by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. I do not know whether all Members have managed to see it. Although the Committee does not oppose what the Government are doing, it has raised one or two questions. It wonders whether, because the Bill is being fast-tracked with limited opportunity for amendment, the Government will need to return to consider some of the matters that might otherwise have been debated. It is important to consider the detail now we are in Committee, and the Constitution Committee raises the constitutional issue of the fact that Parliament is legislating before the Supreme Court has made a judgment. The Constitution Committee does not necessarily say that there is anything wrong with that, but states:

“We are concerned that asking Parliament to legislate in these highly unusual circumstances raises difficult issues of constitutional principle as regards both the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have noted the constitutionally important distinction between legislative and adjudicative functions before. We are concerned that, in the understandable”—

note the word “understandable”—

“rush to rectify a problem which the police have identified as being serious and urgent, insufficient time has been allowed for Parliament fully to consider the constitutional implications of what it is being asked to do.”

The Committee says that it will return to the matter later in the year to consider what

“the effect of Parliament legislating in advance of the Supreme Court hearing may be on the Court when it hears the case on 25 July.”

Can the Minister tell the Committee the Government’s view? I appreciate that the Government might have seen the report only relatively recently and I am unsure whether the Minister will have had time fully to consider it. If the Minister has not had time to do that, he might need to ensure that there is a full discussion and debate in the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am glad to say that the guidelines have always said that, and it was never my intention to propose any change. The guidance on sentence reductions for guilty pleas recommends that a last-minute plea should attract no more than a 10% discount. It also says that where the prosecution case is overwhelming, even an early plea should receive less than the maximum, and recommends 20%. That is obviously a sensible rule. There is some discount because we are still saving the victim and witnesses the ordeal of going into the witness box, but the current one third, let alone 50%, is obviously far too generous for someone caught red-handed.

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

If the Justice Secretary’s aim is to spare the victim, why does he not turn things round and insist on an additional sentence for offenders who waste court time in the face of overwhelming evidence and subject victims to further hurt by their behaviour in court?

[Mr Clarke]

It is simply a result of the culture of the last 50 years, at least, that this has always been described as a “discount” for a guilty plea. Most of the general public do not appreciate that a discount applies. If members of the public are asked whether a discount on the sentence should be given for someone who pleads guilty early, they say no. But if they are asked, “Should someone who puts the victim through the ordeal of the witness box get a longer sentence than someone who pleads guilty?” they answer yes. Because we could not find a resolution to the risk of some of the more serious offences attracting too short a period in custody, and judicial discretion could not be devised to cover that, we have now decided to stick with the long-standing process whereby a one-third discount is available for an early guilty plea.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful for the kind remarks with which my hon. Friend began his question. It seems that he agrees with a fair number of the judiciary on the proposal for a discount for early guilty pleas, and I hope that he is equally in line with the judiciary on such matters as the abolition of indeterminate sentences. We shall all begin to make some worthwhile progress on the whole field if we collaborate.

Those who breach suspended sentences are normally punished by having to serve the suspended sentence on top of any other sentence that has been imposed. However, all such cases require a little more flexibility. All that we are adding is the possibility of flexibility in some cases. Adding a fine might be preferable to making the total sentence far too long: it might be best to find some other way of dealing with an offender.

Parliament is, of course, entitled to specify sentences, but if we do that in too much detail we will fail to deliver justice, because we will not leave enough leeway and enough options for the judges and magistrates who sit and hear about all the facts of a particular case and all the circumstances of the offender.

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

Is the Justice Secretary now on probation, and does he anticipate time added on or early release?

[Mr Clarke]

I think that I have been on probation for the past few decades. Sooner or later I will get the hang of it, but I am working at it. I am not going to launch into a description of reports in the newspapers. I am sure that most of my colleagues envy my ability to get into the headlines, but the truth is rather far away from all that.

The Prime Minister and I, and the Cabinet, have developed these policies together. We have moved along together—[Laughter.] Yes, we have. We were saying the same things about policy 12 months ago, and we are saying the same things about policy today. What matters is whether the policy actually works. These proposals will be judged on whether in three or four years’ time people can see that we have sorted out the appalling mess in the criminal justice system that we inherited from Labour.

Sentencing

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

On the one hand we are criticised for prisoners who have been properly checked being released on licence 18 days before their sentence is completed, but on the other it is suggested that people who have been proved to be a danger to the public and are serving indeterminate sentences should be released prematurely to save money, rather than there being proper checks and balances. At present, IPPs—imprisonment for public protection sentences—are imposed on all prisoners convicted of rape offences and all sentences of four years and more. Under the new proposals, the Government are considering changing the regime so that only those sentenced to 10 years or more will receive an IPP sentence. That will be a genuine source of concern to the public throughout the country.

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

rose—

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall give way to a Member on the Opposition Benches.

[Steve McCabe]

Why do we not arrange for all the interventions planted by the Government Whips to be read out at once, so that my right hon. Friend can get on with his speech and we can get on with the debate?

[Sadiq Khan]

When I was a Whip, the quality of interventions was a lot better than it is today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Although I do not agree with a blanket 50% discount, I accept the sincerity of Government Ministers in trying to reform sentencing. Despite the Lord Chancellor’s denials, the problem is that the Treasury has set those Ministers a slightly unreasonable cost-cutting agenda, which will inevitably undermine some of their ambitions. Cost cutting simply will not give us better sentencing outcomes, and as I am sure the Lord Chancellor knows, effective community alternatives to custody are not a cheap option.

Any review of sentencing needs to take account of the public and demonstrate that both the politicians and the experts charged with the reforms genuinely listen to and take on board the public’s concerns. In that respect, we need to start with victims and ensure that their needs are at the centre. We need to ensure that they are not forgotten or tacked on as an afterthought as courts focus too much attention on the offence and the offence tariff rather than on the impact of the crime.

The public need to know that the money being spent makes a difference and that the justice system belongs to them and not to the professionals or the experts, or even worse, to the offenders, as it sometimes seems. If the Lord Chancellor really wants to protect victims and witnesses in the judicial process, we perhaps need to prise some elements of the justice system from those that currently hog the scene. This is not about blaming judges, but I am not convinced that the current structure of our courts and the selection of judges and—in some cases—magistrates, are the best that they could be. Their sentences frequently do not make sense to most normal people, and at times, they seem to be totally out of touch with the communities that experience most of the crime.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend mentions victims. I have just been doing the maths on this. Someone who is convicted of the offence of causing death by careless driving while over the proscribed limit will end up with something like nine months. How is that fair to the victim?

[Steve McCabe]

That is my point about focusing more on the impact of the crime.

We need to return to the experiment with community courts for lower-level crimes. That kind of approach has public support, even if the legal establishment, which is well represented in the House, is sceptical, and many of my constituents would welcome attention being paid to these matters. Thinking about what the Lord Chancellor said, it seems to me that we need a rethink. This is not about who runs the prisons, but about how they are run. We need to establish the value of short custodial sentences. What does a 10-week sentence set out to achieve? More importantly, we need to know, as he acknowledged, why it is easier to get drugs and other contraband in prison than outside. [Interruption.] Members can say, “It’s your legacy”, but it is a legacy that has been developing for years, and if we reduce the debate to that sort of silly, cheap remark, any benefits we might derive from the time available for debate will be lost. That is why they are wasting their time with that kind of muttering.

I want to know why this continues to happen. Why do we keep reading about prisoners taking us to court? Why can anyone in prison for more than a few months leave still unable to read and write? If the Lord Chancellor really wants to help and to demonstrate that the things he has spoken about today will be activated, he needs to tell us what he is going to do, and to do more than simply repeat the concerns in the Chamber.

We need to clarify the purpose of custody. The priorities for long-term prisoners are straightforward. They should be about security and then a long path to rehabilitation. However, for the short term and the frequent offenders that he mentioned, surely we need to have more credible forms of punishment and restitution, and more imaginative sentencing. That might mean ending the divide between prison and the community. Why not have prison sentences for evenings or weekends? Why not curb leisure time? Surely what matters is that the time is used constructively, and that any activity is not confused with leisure time or voluntary activity; it has to be about punishment, control and making amends.

The public want to see and hear punishment as well as rehabilitation. There have to be fewer opportunities for people to avoid responsibility for their actions, and courts need to entertain fewer excuses. I agree with the Lord Chancellor, but where in his policy are there clear directions and obligations in sentencing? I want to know that there will be rigorous testing, directive counselling and control for offences relating to substance abuse. If the Government were to take us along that path, rather than spending so much time repeating an analysis we all broadly share, and if they were to make clear their intentions, we might be able to have a much more constructive debate, instead of one in the terms being debated today.

Nevertheless, we are having this debate because the Government have set out to cut prison numbers, largely on a cost-cutting basis. The Lord Chancellor has refused to give details of exactly how he is going to provide credible—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I call Philip Davies.